MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Roy Moore and the End of Republican Credibility

Can the conservative movement survive the election of a possible child molester?

BibleWizard, WikimediaBibleWizard, WikimediaOne of the least-predictable outcomes of the swirl of sexual-harassment charges blowing east-to-west out of Hollywood, U.S.A. is that a bible-thumping Alabama Republican judge—most famous for refusing to move a multi-ton granite version of the Ten Commandments from in front of his courthouse—stands credibly accused of molesting a 14-year-old girl and assaulting a 16-year-old girl back in the 1970s.

But that's where Roy Moore, who was in his thirties and a district attorney at the time, has taken us.

A second impossible-to-predict outcome of the national conversation that kicked into high gear with the outing of Harvey Weinstein as a serial predator? That the Republican Party and many of its press allies—think Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, National Review, and The Weekly Standard—have called for Moore to quit his race, even if it means a Democratic pickup in a deep-red state.

McConnell said today, "I believe the women" and that Moore "should step aside," advice that is tantamount to turning over the seat to Democrat Doug Jones. National Review, which long ago distanced itself from Donald Trump despite sharing much of his legislative agenda, especially on immigration), has similarly called for Moore to take a long hike off a short pier. Here's a representative take from NR's Jonah Goldberg, who casts conservative support for Moore as an existential threat to his movement's seriousness and moral standing:

I've lost count of how many times I've written about the unfolding corruption of conservatism these last few years, but the events of the last 24 hours have shocked me about how deep the rot goes. Forget the people who refuse to even give the heavily sourced and corroborated Washington Post account a fair reading on the tired and predictable pretense that inconvenient facts are simply proof of the conspiracy against them. What galls and astounds me are the supposedly conservative public figures arguing that even if it's true that Moore molested a 14-year-old girl, it doesn't matter because, well, because the Bible said it was okay or Democrats are eeeeevil or it was a long time ago. At least Roy Moore admits that the allegation is serious and has denied it....They'd rather be more pro-kid-touching than the alleged kid-toucher himself.

In a house editorial, The Weekly Standard's editorial team makes a similar argument:

If he has any shame left, Moore will withdraw his candidacy and, if he is elected, refuse to serve. That seems unlikely to happen. The special election is scheduled for December 12.

Assuming Moore stays in the race, however, his candidacy may have a clarifying effect on the GOP. Having ignored their former insistence on the importance of personal character and nominated an unprincipled hooligan to be president of the United States, Republicans—Alabama GOP voters and Washington's Republican commentators and politicos—will have to decide if they still think character doesn't matter as long as you cast the right votes and make the right enemies.

Even Breitbart, which staunchly supported Moore when he challenged the Trump-approved conservative Luther Strange in the GOP primary, is playing things on the square. The site is covering the accusations and the backlash against Moore as part and parcel of the surge of charges against liberal Hollywood and entertainment-industry types such as Louis C.K. and George Takei.

Sure, Moore still has his supporters and is running 2 points ahead of his Democratic opponent in the race to fill the vacancy caused by Jeff Sessions joining Trump's cabinet as Attorney General (no polls yet take into account the newer accusations against him). Over 50 Alabama ministers have signed a letter supporting him and his unconstitutional refusals to remove his Ten Commandments monument and allow for same-sex marriage after it was legalized by the Supreme Court. And Fox News' Sean Hannity is actively encouraging his viewers to boycott advertisers who are critical of Moore.

Only a few weeks ago, the media was awash in stories about "the Republican civil war" pitting limited-government conservatives against less-principled tribalists and who simply want to win at any cost. Roy Moore may well represent the final straw for principled conservatives. The GOP has manifestly failed to shrink the size, scope, and spending of government every time it has run the roost; this year's failure to pass a repeal-and-replace Obamacare bill, let alone a sensible budget, is more salt in those wounds. Given his lack of ideological coherence or commitments (not to mention his pussy-grabbing comments), Trump was bad enough. A Senate seat isn't as big a deal as the presidency of course, but it may well be the cherry on top of the shit sundae that the Republican Party has become. What comes next is anybody's guess, but here's hoping that the "clarifying effect" of all this is an actual commitment to shrinking the state and limiting its power in all aspects of our lives.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Sevo||

    "Roy Moore and the End of Republican Credibility
    Can the conservative movement survive the election of a possible child molester?"

    Don't you have a non-sequitur detector?
    Equating "Republican Credibility" and "conservative movement" needs more twists and turns than you prose delivers.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Bingo. The establishments of both parties have the credibility of a North Korean press officer.

  • ThomasD||

    The media's total lack of credibility might also have something to do with the current state of affairs.

    Not that Gillespie is going to touch that can of worms.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Nick Gillespie is squirming deep within that can of worms.

  • ThomasD||

    Heaven forfend that Gillespie note just how recently and how often the media have been caught deep in the Democrat party tank. Or how that sort of information might credibly destroy any chance of anyone believing the WaPo about any of this.

  • jogibew||

    I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

    This is what I do... www.netcash10.com

  • Longtobefree||

    Most credible post in the thread

  • Quixote||

    Isn't this concern with "credibility" a little foolish? Saying that the Republicans will have difficulty getting reelected because they lack credibility is like saying that the Manhattan District Attorney is in trouble because multiple convictions happen to have been wrongly vacated on "First Amendment" grounds in our nation's leading criminal "satire" case,

    https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    or because he, the District Attorney. received money from Harvey Weinstein's lawyer, and so on and so forth. But you know what? The District Attorney was reelected. No problem at all. So enough of this "credibility" nonsense.

  • GILMORE™||

    as someone noted elsewhere:

    count the number of stories in Reason about Bob Menendez vs. Roy Moore

    and consider which of these stories actually involve 'prosecutable evidence'.

    that sound you hear in the background is hacks hacking

  • ThomasD||

    Behind every double standard is a single standard.

    As if Gillespie ever asserted Republicans were credible before this moment...

  • ThomasD||

    (But what can we expect, since Suderman has already maxxed out his Jeff Flake references for the week.)

  • GILMORE™||

    well, I for one think that everyone Gloria Allred represents should get lots of free press.

    /ethical editor

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    Nope, all Republicans who voted for Drumpf and vote for Moore are sexual assault supporters. No credibility whatsoever in the conservative movement. Equating conservatism with Republican is only unfair when you give up claims of being one or the other, and stop voting for Republicans.

  • Loss of Reason||

    Depends on what "if" means right Mr Clinton?

    Have you noticed that most Republicans want Moore gone? When a Democrat gets caught, the wagons are circled and they are sent to counseling but don't lose their job.

  • ||

    @Loss of Reason : When aptly named Congressman Anthony Weiner was caught with his pants down, as it were, he was immediately pilloried from all sides, is no longer holding any public office, and his wife has divorced him.

    The Roy Moore affair is still cloudy, but similar allegations by 5 different women suggest Mr. Moore is in denial.

  • buybuydandavis||

    3 of the "allegations" were "he dated me while legal to do so".

    Not really similar to childhood sexual assault or attempted rape.

  • Azathoth!!||

    "Immediately"

    Mmmmhmmm.....suuure.

    After people on the right were attacked for mentioning it.

    And, only after actual evidence surfaced. Evidence beyond he said/she said.

    But why bother with facts, right?

  • thisbrucesmith||

    Yes, we've sure come a long way in 20 years, haven't we?

    Clinton: that depends on what your definition of 'is' is

    Trump: 'Is' is what I say it is, until I say it isn't

  • Freelancelot||

    Who's bitch are you, idiot? Hillary's?

  • Freelancelot||

    *Whose

    My apologies for egregious typo.

  • JFree||

    The South has a new slogan

    I'd vote for a mangy yellow dog kiddie diddler before I'd vote for a Republican Democrat

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Midwest has a new slogan
    I'd vote for a kiddie diddler before I'd vote for a Republican. Mel Reynolds, Representative (D-IL)

    The North has a new slogan
    I'd vote for a kiddie sexter before I'd vote for a Republican. Anthony Weiner (D-NY)

    The West has a new slogan
    I'd vote for a rapist before I'd vote for a Republican. Brock Adams, Senator (D-WA)

  • p3orion||

    Democrats in Congress have a new slogan:
    "I'd give a standing ovation to a gay colleague censured for buggering an underage page before I'd support a Republican." (Gerry Studds, D-MA)

  • Domestic Dissident||

    Did Nick Gillespie ever suggest that Wiener might be the end of liberalism and democratic party credibility?

    Of course he didn't. Gee, I wonder why?

  • mortiscrum||

    It couldn't have anything to do with Wiener being run out of public office, shunned by the entire Democratic party, and no longer holding office or public relevancy, could it? The only reason he's even been in the headlines in the last 2 years is because he's (was) married to an top ranked aid to Clinton.

  • ThomasD||

    Yes, you are right, that is exactly what happened when the first accusations were made public.

    Or, you know, maybe not.

  • GILMORE™||

    It couldn't have anything to do with Wiener being run out of public office, shunned by the entire Democratic party, and no longer holding office or public relevancy, could it?

    YOU FORGOT "RUSSIANS"

    (shifty glance left and right)

  • Brendan||

    Weiner was also caught in recent times and there was actual evidence.

    I can imagine the reaction if Republicans were saying he needed to stop aside because he's accused of sending/exchanging dirty pictures and notes with 14 year olds in the late 70s and there was no proof.

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    Nobody voted for Weiner after he sexted a minor. In fact, he resigned. So you are confused.

  • Freelancelot||

    Where are Roy Moore's sexting photos?

    By the way, care to explain how Moore — a singlular individual who may very well have done what he's accused of — destroys conservatives? If every Democrass who has done (even worse) evil hasn't long since annihilated the Democrass party, why aren't you screaming, "Never vote Democrass"?

    This is a libertarian forum, not a Democrass forum. Got that?

    (Of course, I might say these same words to Gillespie.)

  • Fred G. Sanford||

    Did Reynolds resign?

    Isn't Weiner in prison?

    Isn't it true Adams only faced one accuser whose accusations he adamantly denied, as opposed to five who are supported by more than 30 corroborating witnesses?

    Your attempt to equate those three examples with Moore failed.

  • Presskh||

    Fred: Yes, I fondly remember how all Democrats immediately abandoned Bill Clinton after numerous women came forward accusing him of sexual harrassment or rape, as well as his having nine sexual "encounters" in the Oval Office with a 22 year old intern when he was 49. Oh! Wait minute - that didn't happen, did it?

  • retiredfire||

    No, the WaPo said they talked to 30 people, all of whose stories weren't included.
    A lot of what was said about Moore were rumors.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Idunno, can the Democratic Party survive electing a murderer (Ted Kennedy) or a rapist (Bill Clinton)?

    Sod off.

  • Lester224||

    But, but, but, the Dems are just as bad! Therefore the repubs shouldn't worry about being hypocritical with respect to their "moral majority" social conservative credibility.

  • ThomasD||

    " the Dems are just as bad!"

    Yep, that is exactly what it is. Totally spot on.

    You nailed it.

    Impressive.

    No, really.

    You should quit your day job and do this, like, full time or something.

  • Longtobefree||

    As long as we are advocating time travel, how many women has he killed?

  • DajjaI||

    I think he should win because this will be bad for Republicans but not libertarians. Also to be honest this was so long ago and it was a different era and I'm glad I wasn't alive back then (or too young to experience it) so I don't want to judge him. Also if this happened just 2 months ago these allegations would never have come to light - they are only the result of our new awareness of such things.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Did you make that comment at the risk of being banned again?
    /joke

    On a serious note. These "events" happened 30-40 years ago? Yes, that was a different "era", but I disagree that the basic morality was different then. The biggest difference was that misconduct was less likely to go viral. I was alive back then and I was an adult in the 80's and in my neck of the woods, Men in their 30's pursuing girls in their teens was considered very creepy. Disclaimer: my neck of the woods wasn't Alabama, (but then again, it wasn't that far away either).

  • MoreFreedom||

    I agree Tom. While creepy is right, there's also the question of legality, the responsibility of the woman and their parents, the many years since this happened, and the truth of what really happened. These kind of allegations are a standard Democrat dirty trick and I wouldn't be surprised if key allegations are fictions. Still I don't like Moore, especially using his charity for personal benefit, as reported in Wikipedia (just like Clinton but on a much smaller scale).

    It's too bad Mo Brooks didn't win the GOP primary, and the people responsible are Moore and the voters in Alabama.

  • Bra Ket||

    Also if this happened just 2 months ago these allegations would never have come to light - they are only the result of our new awareness of such things.

    BS. It's very illegal for a reason. Politicians have been taken out by various kinds of sexual harassment scandals as long as I can remember.

    Predators choose their victims as people who don't stand up to them, and hence least likely to demand justice etc. That's the frustrating problem with stopping these guys. Not some stupid brotherhood nonsense.

    If there's a benefit to these kinds of periodic moral panics, it's that victims with weak unprovable stories go public, and it turns out there were others so the weight of otherwise weak evidence builds against a guy. Of course that would have happened anyway if they didn't keep quiet in the first place imagining they were the only victim.

  • JFree||

    Of course that would have happened anyway if they didn't keep quiet in the first place imagining they were the only victim.

    Well since he was the DA then, who would she have told? What are the chances that he would have brought charges against himself?

  • Bra Ket||

    I believe he was just an assistant DA.

    Either way, presumably you tell the cops as always and someone without a conflict of interest gets to judge whether to press charges. Which may have went nowhere given a lack of evidence. But again, what matters is multiple people coming forward rather than all of them keeping quiet thinking their lone story will be dismissed.

  • JFree||

    He was the only full-time prosecuting attorney. Ran for judge two years later - which says he is known and knows he's known. And according to one of the other girls in the WaPo, he was a local 'golden boy'.

    'Tell the cops' really didn't work back then - esp since it wasn't rape.

  • Bra Ket||

    You're just arguing by assertion now. I don't believe you.

    Do nothing, a policy guaranteed to accomplish nothing, because doing something may not accomplish anything. Good logic. And for a third time, you're ignoring the effect of multiple allegations. People would need to stick their own necks out farther and farther for some young prosecutor, who increasingly appears likely to be guilty.

  • JFree||

    Hell - that bio stuff is in wiki - and the other girls story is in the WaPo.

    You made a good point to start - Predators choose their victims as people who don't stand up to them

    but when the predator has power, their victims CAN'T stand up to them. And as long as they have power - then that timeframe can last a lifetime. There is no 'natural' quick unraveling where 'justice' and 'transparency' will result. If Moore stopped doing this stuff when he got married - then the story can remain buried forever.

  • Bra Ket||

    I was referring to your claim about "telling the cops" not working in 1970s alabama, as the assertion.

    The rest of the information does not amount to much or discount anything I said so I wouldn't need to dismiss it. So what if was the only full-time prosecutor? He's still just a prosecutor. He still has a boss. Get a part-time one from the next town to prosecute him.

    And that was just the softball suggestion to tell the cops on a guy who is basically a cop himself. I could've listed many other people to tell if I wanted to be equally argumentative. Newspapers, church leaders, politicians with more power, the freaking FBI. The 1970's south wasn't the 3rd world like everyone here seems to think it is.

  • Fuck =><= sevo||

    "The rest of the information does not amount to much or discount anything I said so I wouldn't need to dismiss it. So what if was the only full-time prosecutor? He's still just a prosecutor. He still has a boss. Get a part-time one from the next town to prosecute him."

    So you're saying you are utterly ignorant. Got it.

  • Brendan||

    There's a bizarre series of contradictions coming out of this - a small town where everyone knew what kind of person he was, didn't seem to care that he apparently chase the teenagers that came through the courthouse, he had been barred from the mall for being a perv, yet if the girls had spoke out, they would have destroyed them.

    I understand (but don't agree with) a town where no one knows that he's like this and believes to be a hero reacting like assholes to someone who says that the local great guy is messing with teens. But, he was a "known" perv. I guess maybe they don't want their town shamed by the accusation.

    Other towns managed to hang people like him out to dry for messing with the kids of the locals and kept their dignity.

    Surely some of this got around to the parents of teenagers, were they all willing to ignore it too? My only guess here is that he allegedly only went after 'vulnerable' girls who were there for divorce hearings. The parents of teenagers would have pilloried someone like him maybe thought that "those" girls had a part in it, being from a 'broken' home and all that.

    Also, if he was so untouchable, why would the mall security and personnel be willing to 'touch' him by allegedly keeping him out of the mall?

    If the aggregate of all this is true, the whole town is fucked up and enabled this with their silence.

  • Brendan||

    Too bad not one of them thought to shame the emperor (as another poster referenced) by dropping a line to the news media covering his courtroom commandments or primary election.
    Not fucking one. Only when the national media goes looking for dirt after the primary does any of this come out. At a minimum, fuck this down.

    Also, perhaps he actually stopped when he got married and they felt he had changed his ways or even 'repented' with his evangelical BS.

  • JFree||

    Other towns managed to hang people like him out to dry for messing with the kids of the locals and kept their dignity.

    Not really. Back then 'rapist' was certainly a line that if crossed would have resulted in something. But that's not what he did. Other than that, it would have very much been a class/race offense. If he's black - or some wild rebel who is every parent's nightmare for their teen daughter - THEN a clampdown would happen. Find a reason to hang that SOB. Otherwise it's more likely to be dealt with 'subtly' - Are you a slut - have you ever let raucous Robbie feel you up - was it your fault? Why do you want to ruin his career? Let the mall cops deal with 'pestering'. And he leaves town anyway in 83 - returns in 85 to settle down and get married. Prob some of the girls left town too (just natural as they graduated high school). Nothings happening here after that.

    I'm roughly of that age - and was going to college in a small town in the early 80's. None of that dynamic would surprise me at all.

  • Bra Ket||

    Statutory rape was treated as rape. "one day before her 17th birthday gets you seven years" is what they told us back then. In the south. Where I grew up too. Not just visited for college. As did my sister and mother. Neither of who we considered to just be pieces of meat. You can cherry pick people saying stupid shit about women and sex in every culture in every time and place.

    People knew the guy dated teenagers. That doesn't prove they knew the teenagers were underage teenagers, which from the stories they probably didn't. The fact they cared enough to gossip about it means they still found it creepy. Aren't most of the adults from back then dead? Where are we getting these polls of what everyone know and when they knew it?

    When people keep illegal stuff secret it is because they know the outrage they will get, not to mention the potential violence from male relatives.

    If you have contempt for a culture you are the worst person to be projecting predictions and motivations on its people. That's the whole game in politics of course.

  • JFree||

    Statutory rape was treated as rape.

    It wasn't rape though. One of the stories MAY be aggressive groping. The other (the only one that is statutory) is inappropriate contact. And you're right - 'age of consent' creates a really bright line where all that is 'known' is merely gossip fodder. All of which is 'sexual misconduct' - NOT rape. And as a teen back then, I can assure you that you'd have had to be a lawyer back then to really see that as a legal crime.

    It is possible that every single one of those other people - 'accusers', witnesses, everyone quoted, etc - is lying. That they chose now to gang up on victim Moore because [pick your conspiracy].

    Either that or a)he has no remorse, b)he wants to deceive/manipulate others, c)he has callous disregard for others, d)he is arrogant and egotistical, AND e)he can be impulsive and lack judgment. Which - drumroll - makes him pretty damn close to a high-performing sociopath. Which would put him in the same company as most CEO's and most pols - but NOT Jesus.

    Honestly - it is his reaction now - not those past offenses - that is likely to dig him a hole. What would Jesus do? IDK - but I doubt he'd vote for Moore.

  • Ragoftag||

    WWJD? He certainly wouldn't vote for the other guy. What's his name? No one else knows or cares. The public has seen the MSM/Democrat cabal pull this for years, with diminishing success thankfully. Out of the blue allegations by obvious plants? Stock Democrat tactic clear back to Reagan and none have ever proven true. When Democrats molest campaign workers, they get buried. Not safe to be a hot babe of a Democrat campaign staff.

  • Hinara||

    Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

  • Bra Ket||

    "There is no 'natural' quick unraveling where 'justice' and 'transparency' will result."

    And the value of "transparency" here is telling. Moore's survival (assuming the under-age allegations are true and may even be only a partial list) wasn't guaranteed in the lack a perfectly-transparent govt ideal. On the contrary it required a difficult-to-maintain state of near-perfect secrecy. Why? his behavior was against cultural norms. That's why it was illegal, and why people simply needed to stand up and make it known. Not an idealistic argument at all. It's not like they had to overthrow some oppressive system and change everyone's hearts and minds or whatever.

  • JFree||

    Why? his behavior was against cultural norms.

    Yes - but so was reporting it. Here's Phylis Schlafly testifying before Congress in 1981.

    When a woman walks across the room, she speaks with a universal body language that most men intuitively understand. Men hardly ever ask sexual favors of women from whom the certain answer is 'No'. Virtuous women are seldom accosted by unwelcome sexual propositions or familiarities, obscene talk or profane language. IOW - are you sure it wasn't your fault you slut?

    That's how those girls were raised then - and the attitude was pervasive until Anita Hill. And bluntly it still exists - one reason why #MeToo has taken off.

  • Bra Ket||

    "That's how those girls were raised then..."

    Oh brother. So I've been wasting my time arguing with liberal posters who have preexisting hatred of the south. Should've guessed. You argued way too long and hard about hypothetical without even the slightest hedging about your predictions.

  • JFree||

    I've been wasting my time arguing with liberal posters who have preexisting hatred of the south.

    Well bless your heart aren't you precious. I know exactly how my mom (from Texas) raised my sisters and it was the same way her momma raised her - going back a few generations right through Alabama to the Carolinas.

    Little idea this holiday season - you might want to ask your own mother/grandmother what they think about the #MeToo stuff and what were things really like back then. Be open to just listening. You might be surprised at what you hear for the first time ever. It's not just the South either.

  • Thomas O.||

    And let's not forget... this is Alabama, the heart of the Deep South and the "good ol' boy network". Where partisan collusion and FYTW policies are turned up to 11.

    If judges and prosecutors can conspire to keep innocent people in prison for decades (and it takes a Supreme Court order for them to even consider freeing them), then if one of them becomes a grabass or worse, they have the power to intimidate their victims into staying silent or their lives can be made to be a living hell (as in permits/licenses denied or horribly delayed, extra scrutiny from Code Compliance, etc.), on top of no one seriously believing their testimony.

  • Mark22||

    Predators choose their victims as people who don't stand up to them

    Oh, please, cut the b.s. Going on dates with someone twice your age doesn't make you a "victim".

  • SlothB77||

    But the Bob Menendez democrats have so much credibility.

    A guy who was actually charged and is on actual trial. Who the democrats have never tried to remove from the senate.

  • GlenchristLaw||

    Just as sensible people have already given up trying to determine what it would take for the 35% to stop supporting Trump (the answer is: "nothing will stop them, least of all facts"), there is little point in asking what will it take for Alabamans to no longer accept their (well-deserved) reputation as a tent-revival of inbred illiterates. They know how they are viewed, they know they deserve the reputation, and they don't care.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's very appropriate that this was followed by two SIV posts.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    3 and counting.

  • p3orion||

    Sorry, but what is SIV? Based on you calling them "appropriate" and the fact that they now seem to be missing, were they responses telling Glen to go fark himself?

  • Sevo||

    "Just as sensible people have already given up trying to determine what it would take for the 35% to stop supporting Trump"
    I didn't vote for him and I don't know what "supporting" him means in your lexicon, but:
    DeVos, de-funding O-care subsidies, Gorsuch, Pruit, the slow-down in regulations and more I'm not gonna look up right now.
    I don't think anyone presumed him to be anything like a libertarian and he's proven he isn't. But he's done more in the first year than any president I can remember.
    He keeps this up, and I might end up liking the twit. Got a better example in the last, oh, ten Prex?

  • Mark22||

    Just as sensible people have already given up trying to determine what it would take for the 35% to stop supporting Trump (the answer is: "nothing will stop them, least of all facts")

    That 35% figure is Trump's approval rating, i.e., the answer to the question "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president?" So, in answer to your question, for that number to go lower, people would have to disapprove of Trump's actions as president (as opposed to merely disliking his tiny orange hands).

    Mostly what Trump has actually done so far is slowed the growth of regulations and appointed moderately conservative judges and cabinet members. He hasn't started any wars or molested any interns. The economy is doing OK.

    What exactly is it that "sensible people" like yourself disapprove of?

  • SIV||

    Move over Rand Paul. Judge Roy Moore is going to be the greatest, most libertarian-leaning Senator ever elected as a Republican.

  • Fred G. Sanford||

    No one who wants to put the 10 commandments in courtrooms and thinks Muslims should be barred from holding office is even remotely Libertarian.

  • SecedeTexas||

    You really don't understand how the Senate works do you?

  • SecedeTexas||

    You really don't understand how the Senate works do you?

  • trutherator||

    I think all politicians should be barred from office because I'm a libertarian and not Libertarian Party.

    But of course if one Christian judge brings his own Ten Commandments into the courtroom, it's all over and we're in the middle of a national theocratic tyranny. Right. Makes perfect sense.

    That's why the First Congress made clear this was such a danger that they met for Sunday services in the same building they made legislation in. Take that lying theocrats!

    Now we'll see if the Imperial Kleptocrats will allow this interloper in. Maybe they won't. Can't have somebody in the Senate whose court rulings show a clear pattern of believing "Thou Shalt Not Steal".

  • SIV||

    Moore still has his supporters and is running 2 points ahead of his Democratic opponent

    Try TEN POINTS AHEAD, motherfucker

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Only in Alabamastan - home of the redneck child molester GOP faction.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|11.13.17 @ 11:34PM|#
    "Only in Alabamastan - home of the redneck child molester GOP faction."

    Where's the hag from, turd? We need to know the home of the illegal haggery.

  • Fred G. Sanford||

    10 points ahead? According to whom, InfoWars?

    More like it's about even.

    http://www.businessinsider.com.....es-2017-11

  • Mark22||

    "Hi, I'm calling for a major national polling organization that shall not be named, Mr. Michael Thomas Jones, 43, of 35 Main St, Hicksville, Alabama, married, one kid, annual income $47000. We'd like to know whether you are planning to vote for a child molester and possible rapist. What is your answer, yes or no?"

    Click.

  • SIV||

    pitting limited-government conservatives against less-principled tribalists and who simply want to win at any cost

    Roy Moore is the "limited-government conservative". That's why they're trying to take him out.

  • p3orion||

    "Roy Moore is the "limited-government conservative". That's why they're trying to take him out."

    Exactly. These allegations have been out there for DECADES, but only NOW are they coming to light? At this point NOBODY wants Moore (and I'm glad I don't have to make the choice in the ballot box) but many are willing to vote for him just to avoid adding another liberal Democrat to the Senate.

    It's much like the choice people made to "support" Trump: if the Democrats would stop running garbage on their side of the ticket, the GOP would have to do so as well.

  • EscherEnigma||

    ... these kinds of complaints would make a lot more sense if Trump and Moore didn't win their respective primaries.

  • Mark22||

    The GOP establishment also runs garbage in their primaries. The GOP establishment just hasn't figured out to override the voters as effectively as the Democrats have, so occasionally voters get to revolt, even if their only choices are people like Trump and Moore.

  • Mitsima||

    Primaries aren't to chose who is the most, 'wise', or honorable, or principled, or even the most likeable, they are to chose who is most likely to win the race. If we can stop pretending otherwise we can move on with life.

  • KobolCoffeeLord||

    Can the conservative movement survive the election of a possible child molester?


    That's provocative.

    We've had goodness Google your copy editor only knows how many politicians of any stripe duly convicted already. Funny optimistic writer man.

    Yeah, maybe it'd be fun to poke at socons now that some of them are taking their turn on the But Listen No Wait train. Meh. Not particularly. People don't listen, and maybe that's more to the point.

    No war is over until the enemy says it's over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote. - Gen. "Mad Dog" Mattis

    Folks think the only people they have to convince are those on their side. The minimum effort required to convince ourselves, must therefore also be sufficient to convince everyone else.

    Oh, for an easy world.

    Liberals aren't going to listen to knee-jerk wink-winking from non-liberals any more than socons will listen to knee-jerk wink-winking from non-socons, and so forth and so on down the tribal chain. One of these might even have right and truth on their side, it's just hard to see it hiding under the deluge of shit justifications.

    What use is truth if we lack the ability to share it with others, who lack the ability to understand it.

  • SIV||

    Do you hate the government? Do you hate the Republican (and Democrat) Party? How about that lyin' fake news media? ,the Administrative State, Cuckotarian statists who run a rinky-dink billionaire-backed faux-libertarian website?

    I say fuck 'em all.

    If you hate even one of them you want Judge Roy Moore as the next US Senator from the Yellowhammer State.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Republicans are scumbags + conservative Moore supporters are scumbags = How is that lost credibility?

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|11.13.17 @ 11:33PM|#
    "Republicans are scumbags + conservative Moore supporters are scumbags = How is that lost credibility?"

    Turd is a scumbag = proggie hag supporters are scumbags = how is it possible for turd to lose more credibility?
    Fuck off, loser.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Actually Butt, We are all supporting Moore to make sure he gets elected, then turn on him and get him ousted from his Senate seat. This way, the Democrat loses and a special election will be held in which another Republican will win the Senate seat.

    There is no way you can reward an accusation and give a Senate seat to a Democrat. And that is all this is really about. Democrats trying to get a few more Senate seats to prevent Trump from repealing ObamaCare and tax reform and getting more conservative judges appointed.

  • Dazed and Bemused||

    Paying ransom encourages hostage taking. Looks like lc1789 has hit upon a solution.

  • Bearded Spock||

    "Can the conservative movement survive the election of a possible child molester?"

    First off, I'm not in Alabama so other than entertainment value this has zero effect on me.

    But Gillespie betrays his NoVa Inside-The-Beltway Pundit thinking here when he assumes that most voters in Alabama will automatically believe anything the Washington Post says about any conservative Republican. When it comes to unprovable 40 year-old allegations most voters there are just as likely to believe Moore as they are the average Beltway journalist, a fact Moore understands full well. He's going to be the next Senator from Alabama, regardless of what the Media think or what McConnell says.

    The real lesson of the Roy Moore saga has nothing to do with Republican credibility, and everything to do with how the Establishment Media's credibility is held in the same esteem as four-day-old dog shit by the average voter in flyover country.

    To most folks in Alabama, all this pearl-clutching by the Washington Establishment about allowing a sexual pervert in their midst is rich, considering Ted Kennedy's long record of groping, sexual assault, and involuntary manslaughter, and Joe Biden's not-so-subtle creepy touching of young girls while as veep. Most figure Moore is no worse than anyone who is already there, so they might as well vote for someone who represents their political views.

  • Tony||

    Buu buuut Ted Kennedy!

    Pathetic loser.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 12:07AM|#
    "Buu buuut Ted Kennedy!"

    Let's hear the justification for murder, Tony, I'm sure you're up for it.

  • Tony||

    The news isn't about Ted Kennedy.

    The existence of one bad person somewhere at some time doesn't mean all bad people are absolved. But then I realize this is fucking preschool for retards.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 12:16AM|#
    "The news isn't about Ted Kennedy."

    Oh, it's 'old news', is it, you pathetic apologist?

  • Tony||

    It's not news at all. Roy Moore's touching children in the vagina is what's in the new now. Ted Kennedy is dead, if you didn't know, you pathetic partisan nutsack fondler.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 12:28AM|#
    "It's not news at all. Roy Moore's touching children in the vagina is what's in the new now. Ted Kennedy is dead, if you didn't know, you pathetic partisan nutsack fondler."

    So what is as yet un-proven is more important than a proven D murderer, since he was supported and kept office by D voters but has since died?
    It is clear that "logic" was not one of the subjects you aced, scumbag.

  • mortiscrum||

    Seriously, what point are you trying to make? Ted Kennedy is not only not running in the Alabama election, HE'S DEAD. Is it that Democrats have done bad things too, so it's morally OK to vote for Moore?

  • p3orion||

    Just to be clear: your disdain for nutsack fondlers depends solely on their partisanship?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    This FA is about whether a politial party can survive when it elects a possible child molester as Senator.

    The comparison to a political party which kept on re-electing and honoring a drunken unrepentant killer as Senator is entirely apropos. As is the comparison to a proven rapist as President, and the attempted election of his wife to the same office, in spite of her support for his rapes.

    There's something about glass houses, Tony. If you and your Dems want to throw stones, you'd best expect some to be tossed right back at ya.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Oh, and Tony, don't get too worked up over the word "unproven". Al Capone went to Alcatraz for tax evasion, not being a murdering crime boss, but in spite of his crimes being "unproven", everyone knows he was a gangster.

  • Tony||

    We're talking about a child molester and you're talking about glass houses.

    Are you idiots all drunk or what?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    We're talking about the child molesters who live in glass houses. But you probably can't see them, since it's your glass house. You probably think black paint makes glass unbreakable as well as non-transparent.

  • Tony||

    People bring up glass houses when they believe that the accused is being unfairly maligned. Which other child molesters who want to be a member of Congress do you feel are unfairly maligned?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    People bring up hypocrisy all the time when talking about politicians. It's the nature of the best. The only exceptions are people with a partisan political axe to grind. Like, uhh, you, who refuses to admit that a painted glass house is still made of breakable glass. Or that a silvered glass house becomes many many mirrors.

  • Tony||

    You could just say maybe it's not a good idea to vote for a child molester.

    I remember when you people used to lecture me in moral absolutes.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    No, I could say ALL violent abusive behavior is reprehensible. You are the one refusing to expand your definition of reprehensible beyond the one (R) politician allegedly caught with his hand in the nookie jar, especially ignoring all the (D) proven to have killed and raped.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I meant to say "the one (R) recently ...", because it's important to note that the (D) killer was outed the very next day, yet still supported, and the (D) serial rapist was outed many times over many years, both before and after the alleged (R) incident, yet both were held in high esteem by their (D) party.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 12:16AM|#
    "The news isn't about Ted Kennedy."

    Funny. When the news was about Ted Kennedy, the lefties try and deflect that.

    When the news is about an accusation to get a Democrat into an Alabama Senate seat, the lefties try and deflect what it is all about.

    The left does not care that a girl was touched inappropriately. Democrats do that all the time.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Tony, I know you're willfully dense but try to keep up.

    For the past 50 years America's Elites in Hollywood, Academia, the Media, and DC have portrayed themselves as moral avatars worthy of emulation by those retrograde Common Folk in the sticks, while they simultaneously lived their lives like Caligula in the last days of Rome.

    Now that the Common Folk have noticed their Betters are no better than anyone else, they are free to vote for whomever they please regardless of their personal peccadilloes. This is how Donald Trump became president, and how Roy Moore is still ahead in the polls.

    If the Elites want character to matter again, then they need to start living up to their own standards instead of ignoring them when it's politically convenient. Because most Common Folk have figured out that all this moral outrage is just a smokescreen for pushing a political agenda, and going along with it is a sucker's game.

  • Tony||

    But let's lock Hillary Clinton up for using a private email account at work. Right?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I mean, after all, Benedict Arnold only had a scrap of paper in his boot, right? What's a simple scrap of paper among friends? It's not like he committed treason or anything.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 12:50AM|#
    "But let's lock Hillary Clinton up for using a private email account at work. Right?"

    Funny. When the news was about Hillary Clinton, the lefties try and deflect that.

    Hillary Clinton will be indicted soon. She mishandled classified information.

    Moore will win the election and then he will vacate the Senate seat so a special election can be held. This was a Democrat never grabs that Senate seat.

  • mortiscrum||

    If she's indicted and thrown in jail, what will you all cry about then? Will it still all be Hillary's fault?

  • Lester224||

    If HRC is in jail so what? Roy Moore is still a child diddler.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Possibly a kid diddler.

    Hillary admitted she made mistakes having a private server.

    Bill Clinton has yet to admit he banged kids thanks to Jeffrey Epstein.

  • p3orion||

    "..Joe Biden's not-so-subtle creepy touching of young girls while as veep."
    Not just young girls

  • Bob Meyer||

    How long did the Post sit on this story? If they knew about it before the primary and withheld it until they could use it to guarantee a Democrat victory then we have found something lower than a child molester...someone who would use a child molester to gain a political advantage.

  • Ron||

    interesting thought and should be brought to attention

  • Fred G. Sanford||

    Except they aren't unprovable. The guy was actually banned from the mall as a result of his constant cruising for teens.

  • Mark22||

    He married a woman of 24 when he was 38; it is hardly news that he was looking for a young bride. Absolutely shocking.

  • Eidde||

    "even if it means a Democratic pickup in a deep-red state"

    Then they can screw themselves.

    I don't care if Roy Moore drove a young woman into a pond and drowned her and then escaped justice for his crime, nothing could excuse putting the Democrats back into control.

  • Eidde||

    This isn't a friendly game of squash in the country club, you don't forfeit the government t enemies of the Republic and the unborn based on reports which may or may not be true.

    If Moore is a sleaze then they should be all the more supportive of Moore, because it would make him fit in easier with the other Congress members, and these country-club Republicans are all about clubbability and good relations among Congress members.

    This history of Congress can sometimes be confused with a pornographic novel, and suddenly these effete Republican brie-nibblers get all indignant at one more sleaze, more or less, joining the club?

    Screw these lift-their-pinkie-while-sipping-chardonnay bastards, they're the ones who helped fuck up the country in the first place, why should anyone listen to them?

  • Tony||

    Jesus, forcing women to give birth against their will is really important to you isn't it?

    Yet such moral relativism when it comes to kid fucking and shitting on the constitution. Hum.

  • Eidde||

    No, retard, it's not fucking Solon versus Catiline, it's a possible teenager-groper versus a baby-dismemberer.

    Why are you so indignant at fondling children if you're so willing to kill them?

  • Tony||

    If you really believed abortion equals kid murder, then surely you favor locking women who get them up in prison for life, or given the death penalty if that's your thing.

  • Eidde||

    If you're really in favor of dismembering babies in the womb even if that is an effective method of covering up statutory rape, then logically you should be in favor of molesting teenagers.

  • Tony||

    Answer my question first. Should women who get abortions be punished for first-degree murder?

  • Eidde||

    You don't issue demands to me, not ever, fuckface.

  • Tony||

    It should be an exceedingly easy question for someone who truly believes abortion to be equal to kid murder.

  • Eidde||

    I defer to the pro-life groups who have done more to advance human welfare then a million Tonys.

  • Tony||

    You defer to being a pussy who doesn't believe what you say you believe. But you do appear sincere in your cynical partisan defense of a child molester. Why don't you tell me more about morality.

  • Eidde||

    I won't tolerate a shitheel like you projecting your lying behavior onto me.

  • Tony||

    So because some women get abortions, it's OK to have a US senator who touched little girls.

    The moral high ground isn't exactly Mt. Everest lately huh?

  • Eidde||

    Maybe sevo was right, maybe you *should* have sexual relations with your father.

    I used to think sevo was going a bit too far, but given your lies and bullshit, maybe sevo was right.

  • Tony||

    You seem to have a high tolerance for sexual perversion.

  • Eidde||

    You're the one who should be fucking your daddy, what do I have to do with it?

  • Loss of Reason||

    Eidde, Tony only knows about sex in theory and everything his mom has told him his basement. He can't discuss facts so it's only name calling. Don't waste your breath.

    Hey Tony, one of your hero's hung out with a rapist and did nothing. She had the power to speak up and stop it. That was fine in your book because it was part of your team right?

    I'm not a Moore fan, but remember there is supposed to be a trail and evidence. Now your guilty depending on your team right?

  • Mark22||

    So because some women get abortions, it's OK to have a US senator who touched little girls [inappropriately].

    I don't think we have any choice in that matter: we probably have lots of them already.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    What if they just don't believe the allegations?

  • Bearded Spock||

    Nonsense. Everyone must believe it; it's in the WASHINGTON POST!

  • JFree||

    What if they just don't believe the allegations?

    Then WaPo really went out of their way to find a girl who WAS verifiably (via her mom's divorce) at that courthouse in Feb 1979 - who was willing to make those allegations (which given some of the comments here - are likely to result in serious hassle if not death threats). And in particular her immediate response - which was that after talking to a couple of friends, she thought SHE had done something wrong so she shut up. And two of these girl's mothers pretty much admit that they would have been happy to pimp their girls out to 'husband material' like Moore - that is very much a context of those times unlikely to be 'created' by a reporter who wasn't around then.

    There will I'm sure be a ton of people who don't believe the story. But honestly I doubt most of them will bother reading the story.

  • Brendan||

    So WaPo gets a tip/hint about this, then hunts down the person who was in that courthouse 38 years ago, and gets a story.

    I'd really like to know the timeline here.
    Why did they or the person who told them wait until now to reveal this?

    I'm still surprised that no one ever mentioned Mr. Ten Commandments and his dating teenage girls while in his 30s.

    Either way, it stinks.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its a slick way to try and grab the Senate seat in Alabama. Democrats know that Moore will win, so they are going to try this.

    If you think this tactic will be last time this is tried in the next 12 months, you have not been paying attention people. Democrats will do whatever it takes to stop Trump from dismantling the government.

    Democrats cannot take over the House, so they are trying to grab Senate seats. Murkowski and Susan Collins are clearly RINOs who can be controlled by the left. Its 52 to 48 Senators.

  • JFree||

    Why did they or the person who told them wait until now to reveal this?

    Why would WaPo even send a journalist to Alabama to cover his local/statewide elections? This is his first 'national' election. So the question is - why would LOCAL newspapers reveal it? I can think of a ton of reasons why they would go along to get along. In fact the SAME damn reasons why the WaPo is such a crappy establishment-protecting rag IN DC.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties have had a hard on for Roy Moore for years. The left has been all up in Alabama politics because Roy Moore has been setting back lefty politics for years.

  • JFree||

    Roy Moore has been irrelevant outside Alabama his whole life. He has not even been on a federal court - where the Senate would have been required to approve him. He has once been the OBJECT of a lawsuit filed at the lowest level federal court in Alabama (US District Court of Middle Alabama) - where an actual federal judge ruled against him and the rest of the Alabama state judiciary went along with the federal judge.

    He is NOTHING but a (much less consequential) throwback to Lester Maddox, Orville Faubus, George Wallace, or Ross Barnett. Making his local political bones by defending 'states rights' against them damn Yankee/commie/Jewish/nigga/atheist outside agitators.

    And apparently his supporters like you don't much mind that he woulda diddled your daughter/sister/mother when they were kids. Which makes you a total cuck.

  • Brendan||

    I guess we're ignoring all the national publicity in/around the early 2000s with him putting up the ten commandments in his courtroom?

  • Fred G. Sanford||

    That's not the same as running for national office. JFree is correct; prior to his Senate run, why would the WaPo investigate Moore? The women didn't hide, it's just that no one previously publicized their stories. This guy was so bad he was banned from the mall. Even ignoring the allegations I can't see how a Libertarian would ever support Moore given his extreme religious views.

  • Fk_Censorship||

    Because his extreme religious views won't affect our lives. He won't chop our daughters' clitorises, nor will he mandate forced prayer. Whereas a Democrat will undoubtedly add more bureaucracy and lawyerly oppression to our daily lives, one way or another.

  • Mark22||

    Even ignoring the allegations I can't see how a Libertarian would ever support Moore given his extreme religious views.

    Yes, because as we all know, there are only two possible positions on these issues: either you "support Jones" or you "support Moore"!

  • SIV||

    The media blew what little credibility they had left trying to stop and, then failing that, de-legitimize Trump

  • Eidde||

    That's not all they blew.

  • Tony||

    They're just slow. Despite accomplishing literally nothing positive in half a century, they deserve another four or five turns at the wheel surely.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 12:04AM|#
    "Despite accomplishing literally nothing positive in half a century, they deserve another four or five turns at the wheel surely."
    Yep: "Great Society" (loser), "Bubba-care" (non-starter), Bubba's Motel 6 Lincoln Bedroom (slimy enough that only you would like it), O-care (horrible), "Obama's Wars" (Amazon, you'll love it), the hag's attempt to steal the WH silverware, her illegal server network, her destroying subpoenaed evidence, and so on and so on...
    I'll take "nothing" in comparison to that (incomplete) list of D mendacity, slimebag.

  • Tony||

    Lol. You're so fucking dumb.

  • Sevo||

    "Lol. You're so fucking dumb."
    Folks, the scumbag posted that and I can do nothing to add to the amusement.

  • p3orion||

    "Lol. You're so fucking dumb."
    Pretty much the summation of liberal "reasoning."

  • IceTrey||

    Bill Clinton was President and having sex in the Oval Office with a young intern so why can't Moore be a Senator?

  • Tony||

    What do you suppose Alabama supporters of the kid fucker think about Clinton's consensual BJ with an adult?

    Yes let's put these people in charge of morality.

  • Brendan||

    They were upset about Clinton getting a BJ while in office at that time. Now they're being told that they need to be outraged by an allegation that is related to something that everyone knew, yet kept totally secret from 40 years ago.

    Hmm, I wonder what the difference is.

  • Tony||

    The difference is the victim was a child in one case and not the other.

  • Brendan||

    The BJ or at least some sexual act could be proven (the famous dress), this cannot.

    On one hand, we have something that happened in the last few years (relative to 1998), has proof, and was deliberately lied about in court.

    Then we flash forward 19 years to this week and are told that something happened 35 years ago without any proof, and is coincidentally being brought up just after a primary election where it's too late to do anything about the subject of this accusation.

    Hmmm...

  • Tony||

    But what does Bill Clinton have to do with anything? You are aware, yes, that one person doing something bad doesn't absolve someone else of doing another, worse thing? Hello? Anyone home?

  • Brendan||

    You're the one that answered first.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    You are aware, yes, that denigrating someone for the very thing you used to, and still do, support, when it's done by your side, is commonly known as hypocrisy? hello? Anyone home in that glass house?

  • Tony||

    I have never supported child molestation as you are doing now.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Which is worse, killing someone or molesting someone? Serial rapist or child molester?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, you have defended Bill Clinton and he has supposedly a travel buddy of convicted child molester Jeffrey Epstein. Hmmm... why would a known child molester get to hang with such a woman lover like Bill Clinton?

  • p3orion||

    Yes, I'm sure Tony is shocked and outraged by Clinton's 26+ flights with Epstein on the "Lolita Express."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its different now because the Democrats want that Alabama Senate seat.

  • Mark22||

    And by "child" you mean "teenager of marriageable age"?

    And by "victim" you mean "dated with no actual sex"?

    Unlike, say, Isherwood and Bachardy, or Liberace and Thorson?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    A supervisor having sex with a subordinate is to rape as voluntary manslaughter is to murder.

    Are you implying, seriously, that a star-struck intern succumbing to her boss is acceptable if the boss is Democrat but not if Republican?

    Yes, yes, adults, personal responsibility, etc. But there's a reason for statutory rape laws, and considering how Democrats are so big on blaming everyone else for their problems, it's only fitting that a boss taking advantage of a subordinate should similarly be held responsible.

    How many CEOs have been fired recently for the same thing? Are you saying the President can do what CEOs can't?

    Fuck, Tony. If it weren't for double standards, statists wouldn't have any at all.

  • Tony||

    I'm not talking about Bill Clinton. I refuse to engage in your pathetic propagandistic attempt to defend Roy Moore from child molestation.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    By your silence, you continue to support serial rapist Bill Clinton and killer Ted Kennedy.

    Except you aren't silent, so you do continue to actively deny any hypocrisy on the part of your partisan politicians while accusing everyone else of hypocrisy on the part of their partisan politicians. You are so blinded by partisan rage that everyone who points out your own partisan hypocrisy becomes a partisan political hack. You are incapable of comprehending people who simply enjoy pointing out the spectacle of partisan political hypocrisy of all flavors.

  • Tony||

    I'm not a hypocrite because I've never defended a child molester, as you are doing now.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    You are a hypocrite for refusing to consider that a proven serial rapist or a proven killer is comparable to an alleged child molester.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, you have defended child molesters. Weinstein and Bill Clinton.

  • p3orion||

    "I've never defended a child molester."

    Hillary has!

  • EscherEnigma||

    Well, kid-fucking is in the bible, but sodomy (including oral) is strictly prohibited, so...

  • JFree||

    All we need now is Caligula and a horse.

    MAGA

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Bill Clinton cannot be president anymore. He has completed his Constitutionally limited two terms.

  • Brendan||

    I'm amazed that all of this was kept completely under wraps in a small town for more than 35 years.

    On a side note, if we're going to spend our time mired in the past addressing accusations from more than 20 years ago, pretty much everyone is finished.

    Democrat credibility, Republican credibility, Libertarian credibility, Green Party credibility, etc. all gone.

    How many of us in our high school and college years would be pilloried as racist, homophobic, sexist, bullies, harassers, drunks, druggies,etc. based on our behavior? What about 25-35?

  • Tony||

    The subject is child molestation dude.

    Can't this one place be free of Republican leg humping when the Republican in question diddled little girls? Please?

  • Brendan||

    The subject is credibility, so fuck off.

    On a side note, I heard that you raped a girl 20 years ago, therefore I think you need to step aside and stop posting.

  • Tony||

    20 years ago I was about the age of one of Roy Moore's victims.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 12:25AM|#
    "20 years ago I was about the age of one of Roy Moore's victims."
    Uh, and, uh...
    You were as stupid then as you are now.

  • Brendan||

    As was I.

    Would you be able to effectively disprove such an accusation if it were leveled? If you were up for promotion or election to an office, do you think it would have an adverse effect on you?

    It would fuck with me as I had to regroup and try to reconstruct what I was doing in that timeframe, who I spent time around who could vouch for me, and than try to find all of them. I lost contact with nearly all of my friends from high school, and everyone I knew from before 10th grade. Even into my 20s, it would be hard to disprove as I didn't have many friends, just worked and went home. I can't really prove that I didn't sexually harass that neighbor or put the moves on that store clerk or whatever, so fuck me if I ever run for office.

    On a side note, I didn't actually hear anything like that about Tony and was just pointing out the problems in defending against accusations that are more than 20 years old.

  • Tony||

    When you're on the other side of both me and Mitch McConnell, you need to seriously reexamine your life choices.

  • Brendan||

    I'm very proud to be on the other side of you and Mitch McConnell.

  • Tony||

    Are you proud that that side is "in defense of child predation"?

  • Brendan||

    I'm proud to be on the side that still honors basic principles of presumption of innocence and sees through politically timed revelations.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Right-wing moron conflates trial by jury and presumption of innocence with voting. Hahaha... what a fucking joke. You are ridiculous.

  • Brendan||

    Yep. I want some proof of misdeeds before assuming someone did something, it's a broader principle than criminal trials.

  • Tony||

    I think the timing is more Weinstein-related than anything.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The left wants a Senate seat. That is the only reason this is even an accusation. Democrats have zero problem with their own touching kids.

    This will not be the last time this tactic will be used in the next 12 months.

  • p3orion||

    "Democrats have zero problem with their own touching kids."

    Gerry Studds (D-MA) received a standing ovation from the Democrat delegation (and was reelected six times by Democrat voters) after being censured for having sex with an underage male Congressional page.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Yeah, I know... a 30 year old man running his hand up in. A 14-yo's panties. That's just hijinks.

  • Sevo||

    Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot|11.14.17 @ 12:20AM|#
    "Yeah, I know... a 30 year old man running his hand up in. A 14-yo's panties. That's just hijinks."

    Probably better than a 35YO man murdering millions, but that's just lefty fun, right, slimebag?

  • Brendan||

    Not hijinks by any measure, but impossible to prove now that 35 years have passed.

    I'm questioning this desire or willingness to spend our time mired in 20+ year old accusations that can't be proven or effectively defended against.

  • Tony||

    Witness testimony isn't evidence?

    Whatever. Kind of a shitty hill to die on.

  • Brendan||

    Witness testimony based on conversations more than 30 years ago is pretty much worthless.

    It's not a bad one to fight on when the timing shows an obvious political agenda.

    This reminds me of the women who came forward mere days before the 2016 election and pretty much vanished after Donald Trump's election.

    Should Roy Moore win, I'm wiling to bet that all of this just goes away the day after the election.

  • Tony||

    He'll get booted out of the senate as several Republicans have already indicated. For good reason. That reason being child molestation.

    I love the "But it's near election day!" stuff. Perhaps you endorse a 30-day period before election day when we're not allowed to examine the virtues and vices of candidates on the ballot?

  • Brendan||

    I think that sitting on something like this until after a primary election is a problem and undermines the credibility of the people breaking the story.

    If this was Fox News breaking a story like this mere days after a primary in a contested blue state, I know you would see it for what it was.

  • Tony||

    I'd ask if you have a single shred of evidence that this was a partisan maneuver, but it doesn't matter because the dude molested little girls.

  • Brendan||

    I'd ask if you have a single shred of evidence that he molested little girls.

  • Tony||

    Five first-hand witness accounts. Plus he practically admitted it on TV.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    How many rape victims does Bill Clinton have? His wife was an accessory after the fact at the very least. They all reported his rapes much sooner than these accusations. Your refusal to expand your criminality horizon beyond the narrow case of child molester is quite telling.

    Son. Sit down. Here's a pad and pencil. Why don't you ease your guilty conscience by confessing to all of your own personal adventures which weren't child molestation? It's the first step in admitting that "crime" encompasses far more than just child molestation.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 1:14AM|#
    Five first-hand witness accounts. Plus he practically admitted it on TV.


    Key word "practically".

    Come on socialist. Just lie like the rest of them and say that he did admit it.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    So all Bill Clinton's accusers were telling the truth after all. Well, baby steps and all that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot|11.14.17 @ 12:20AM|#
    Yeah, I know... a 30 year old man running his hand up in. A 14-yo's panties. That's just hijinks.


    I am sure all the lefties were outraged when Stalin had sex with 13-year-old Lidia Pereprygins.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Ok, true story: Both Roy Moore and I prowled the Gadsden Mall looking for teenage girls in the 80s. I was with my Mom who was buying me clothes for 9th grade, but it's entirely possible that the reason I didn't have my sexual coming of age until several years later was because I was fucking cock blocked by some right-wing pervert dick. Geesch, just my luck.

  • Sevo||

    Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot|11.14.17 @ 12:23AM|#
    "Ok, true story:.."
    This from a scumbag supporter of mass murderers.
    Hint, scumbag. If you ever wish your comments to be taken seriously, it's a good idea to lie a bit less than turd and Tony. If you could ever find the honesty to do so.
    Fuck off, you miserable piece of shit.

  • Tony||

    Have you been an advocate of pedophilia for a long time, or is it a recent thing?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 12:29AM|#
    "Have you been an advocate of pedophilia for a long time, or is it a recent thing?"

    Gee, fuck-face, when did you stop fucking your momma?

  • Brendan||

    Technically, this isn't pedophilia, it's Hebephilia and Ephebophilia.

    Pedophilia is the thing that left wing publications like Salon.com tried really hard to rehabilitate and present in a favorable manner.

    The first two two are the things engaged in by so many celebrities held in high regard by progressives, and the subject of the unfairness of sex offender lists.

  • Tony||

    I expect defenses of pedophilia to crop up occasionally on a libertarian site. But solely and specifically in order to defend someone because of the (R) after his name? Just... lame.

  • Brendan||

    I'm not defending pedophilia at all, nor am I defending Ephebophilia or Hebephilia.

    I'm defending the idea that accusations that are more than 30 years old are pretty much worthless.

  • Tony||

    Maybe one accusation. How about many accusations of violent sexual assault against children? What if he had a (D) after his name?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 12:55AM|#
    "Maybe one accusation. How about many accusations of violent sexual assault against children? What if he had a (D) after his name?"

    How about defending a convicted child rapist, like, oh Whoopi did, Does that count for someone with a D after her name?
    Note, this is not an ACCUSED, this is a CONVICTED, but Tony's jack with that (D).

  • Brendan||

    If this was a contested district in California and Fox News or another right leaning outlet came out right after a primary with accusations of sexual assault and harassment from 35-40 years ago against the (D) candidate, I wouldn't need to say anything, the bulk of the media would question everything and be quick to call it political opportunism.

    I would smile at the schadenfreude, but be quick to point out how this smells like bullshit. This would be much more so if this all happened to a high profile Democrat who had been in the spotlight repeatedly AND all apparently took place in a small town where everyone supposedly knew and said nothing for more than 35 years.

    How believable would it be if Chuck Schumer were accused of of sexual assault 40 years ago, mere days after a hotly contested primary and it was Fox News, Breitbart, or Daily Caller, etc. breaking the story and claiming that this was all common knowledge in the town where this supposedly happened AND it was apparent that the story had been sat on until after the primary?

  • JFree||

    I'm defending the idea that accusations that are more than 30 years old are pretty much worthless.

    That's just crap. The statute of limitations was three years back then. He was the DA - so there was no legal recourse then - even IF a girl had the guts to speak up in an era when she would have been vilified for doing so.

    All of which is - yes - irrelevant. What is NOT irrelevant is one's CURRENT reaction to something that one did a long long time ago.

    I don't know what sort of reaction would work in Alabama - but on planet Earth some sort of an apology and 'I've learned from my mistakes and poor judgment in my youth and things that didn't seem so bad then do seem bad now' would go far.

  • Brendan||

    That's just crap. The statute of limitations was three years back then. He was the DA - so there was no legal recourse then - even IF a girl had the guts to speak up in an era when she would have been vilified for doing so.

    If the stories are accurate, most of the town knew he was like this and didn't seem to care. Nothing he did, was suspected of doing, etc. was enough to warrant any sort of commentary from anyone during his courtroom drama, the primary, etc. No one so much as floated an anonymous line to a news agency in all the years he was in the spotlight.

    Regardless of how it was or might have been back then, I still don't put a lot of stock in 30-40 year old accusations.

    I don't know what sort of reaction would work in Alabama - but on planet Earth some sort of an apology and 'I've learned from my mistakes and poor judgment in my youth and things that didn't seem so bad then do seem bad now' would go far.

    Oh no it wouldn't. Apologies do not anything but put more fuel on the fire. Has anyone come away from anything better after an apology?

  • JFree||

    Apologies do not anything but put more fuel on the fire. Has anyone come away from anything better after an apology?

    Well that certainly explains why it is not just politicians who are the problem. It's US - voters. Cuz if we can't self-acknowledge our own mistakes in our own voting - for the purpose of changing it in future - then we are just REALLY easy to manipulate in future. And the most intransigently evil pol - the one who is incapable of apologizing - is the one most likely to benefit because they don't create that uncomfortable cognitive dissonance

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 12:49AM|#
    "I expect defenses of pedophilia to crop up occasionally on a libertarian site."

    I expect stupid accusations to show up anytime you post, scumbag. And you just proved it.

  • Tony||

    What you should expect is for me to bring up your defense of a child molester every time you try to talk to me until the end of time.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 1:09AM|#
    "What you should expect is for me to bring up your defense of a child molester every time you try to talk to me until the end of time."

    Like turd's pathetic, self-serving lie regarding my support of the GOP, if you ever find I've done so, you are more than welcome post the link. Since it is an outright lie, I won't spend time worrying about it.
    One of these days (maybe) you might (maybe) post something that isn't a lie. But it is not likely.
    You lost, loser. You and turd get together and tell us about how the hag lost 'cause stuff and things! It's always a pleasure to laugh at the two of you.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Dude, if you don't believe me I could just tell you where the Piggly Wiggly was in the mall. No way man, I was there.

  • Sevo||

    Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot|11.14.17 @ 12:31AM|#
    "Dude, if you don't believe me I could just tell you where the Piggly Wiggly was in the mall. No way man, I was there."
    Asshole, you have proven yourself to be a liar day in and day out, and now you wish to be taken seriously?
    Stuff it up your ass.
    You've long since lost any cred; you have NONE.
    Fuck off.

  • Dread Pirate Roberts||

    It's a binary choice, people. Either you're with the Screaming At The Sky Party or the Smashing Coffee Machines Party.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    I take it as your either willing to vote for a predator because of your politics or your not.

  • Sevo||

    Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot|11.14.17 @ 12:42AM|#
    "I take it as your either willing to vote for a predator because of your politics or your not."

    When did you start supporting a mass-murderer? Is it because of your politics?
    Just curious.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Can we just agree that you shouldn't vote for a child molester. Your friends above are busy making fools of themselves. You shouldn't.

  • Sevo||

    Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot|11.14.17 @ 12:58AM|#
    "Can we just agree that you shouldn't vote for a child molester. Your friends above are busy making fools of themselves. You shouldn't."

    Can we just agree that, as a slimy commie, you've long since lost any possible moral stance and you should just STFU? You should.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Why are you having such a tough time on this? This is an easy one.

  • Sevo||

    Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot|11.14.17 @ 1:07AM|#
    "Why are you having such a tough time on this? This is an easy one."

    Yes, it is. Fuck off.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    This is an easy one, general. Just say: "I don't think you should vote for a child molester."
    For fuck's sake, man, have you no decency after all this time.

  • Sevo||

    Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot|11.14.17 @ 1:17AM|#
    "This is an easy one, general. Just say: "I don't think you should vote for a child molester."
    For fuck's sake, man, have you no decency after all this time."

    Oh, it's VERY easy: You have no standing to so much as ask for a chance to go potty.
    You..
    Are..
    A ...
    Pathetic...
    Piece ...
    Of ...
    Shit.
    Fuck off.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Haha. You're so stupid. How did you manage not to shoot your nuts off? Geesch, you must have had a fairy godmother.

  • XM||

    In your world, a court has already convicted Moore. Good for you.

    It's just not our world.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Actually, it's trivially easy to say "If the allegations are true, he should step down". Acknowleding both that the allegations are not proved to be true, and that child molestation is a disqualifying offense.

  • Flyby||

    Joining with the mob is always the easiest choice. But what if he really isn't a child molester?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Democrats want that Senate seat, so they don't care if the accusations are true or not.

    Most jurisdictions call it slander to say someone committed a crime without proof.

  • Brendan||

    Yes, you shouldn't vote for child molesters. Chances are, the person's conviction would be brought up during the election and cause them to lose.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    So you'd vote for a person who has five credible accusations against him just because he hasn't been convicted of anything? Do you bring a judge with you into the voting booth?

  • Brendan||

    I would take accusations from more than 30 years ago with a grain of salt.

  • Sevo||

    Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot|11.14.17 @ 1:10AM|#
    "So you'd vote for a person who has five credible accusations against him just because he hasn't been convicted of anything? Do you bring a judge with you into the voting booth?"

    So he should be sent to the gulag, comrade?

  • TW||

    I only count two accusers - the other three women said that they went on dates with Moore after he asked for and got permission from their mothers but that nothing improper happened.

  • Mark22||

    Personally, I wouldn't vote for Roy Moore because I think he is a totalitarian asshole and because he wants to throw me in prison.

    But if you are a socially conservative voter who would have voted for him before the WaPo broke this scandal, I think you shouldn't change your vote based on these hit pieces.

    If he's convicted of something, Congress can still act and we can have another special election.

  • Brendan||

    I'm willing to give alleged predators the benefit of the doubt with such old accusations, the same way I'm willing to give present day accused.

    I also barely care about things that happened more than 30 years ago.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Yeah, me too. Do you think Roy Moore is going to get on the stage with Juannita Broaderick and cleanse all his sins by talking about how Clinton raped her, which I don't really care about because it happened so long ago? Fuck that fat bitch.

  • Sevo||

    See above:
    Slimy commie takes any possible avenue to support the losing hag while attempting to establish some moral standing a bit earlier.
    And then wonders why those with any intelligence at all refuse to take him seriously.
    Fuck off, commie-kid. The world would be a better place if your mom had had an abortion.

  • Mark22||

    Americans vote for rapists, child molesters, and the occasional murderer, all the time. I'd guess the majority of members of Congress have been guilty of sexual misconduct. Are you really going to pretend that one more would make a difference?

    Of course, using selective accusations and enforcements in order to gain power over people is the hallmark of a police state, so this b.s. about 40 year old sexual misconduct is just an extension of Three Felonies A Day to the political arena.

  • Hank Phillips||

    You wouldn't want to cast a libertarian spoiler vote. That might frighten both the Screaming and Smashing looters into adopting some more of our planks and repealing some more moronic laws and taxes. Sticking up for individual rights or caving like a coward is THE binary choice.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Let's see... I'm trying to figure out what the age difference was between Roy Moore and his accusers. It's 2017, the accusations was that he did this in 1978. Add 10 to 7 subtract 8... oh wait, she was 14. He's a sick pervert.

  • Sevo||

    Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot|11.14.17 @ 1:06AM|#
    "Let's see... I'm trying to figure out..."
    I'm trying to figure out why you weren't aborted.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He might be a sick pervert. Its an accusation right now.

    I just will not fall for a lefty trick to grab a Senate seat by accusing a guy of something from 30 years ago. After Moore wins the Senate seat and evidence comes out that he did do this, then he should give up his Senate seat and there will be a special election. Another Republican will win.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    If You Refuse to Condemn Predators because of Politics, You're Disgusting

    -National Review

    Yep.

  • Sevo||

    "If You Refuse to Condemn Predators because of Politics, You're Disgusting"

    Quoted by a scumbag who supports Joseph Stalin and now wishes to claim the moral high ground. The hypocrisy would be amusing if it wasn't astounding:
    "How Many People Did Joseph Stalin Kill?"
    [...]
    "In any case, if the figure of 60 million dead is accurate that would mean that an average of 2 million were killed during each year of Stalin's horrific reign – or 40,000 every week (even during "peacetime")."
    http://www.ibtimes.com/how-man.....ll-1111789

    There is no doubt that *if* Moore has done what is claimed, he has no business in the government but (*cough* Ted K, *cough* Bubba, *cough* JFK), isn't it interesting that those who are just jack with mass-murderers now find a moral issue to grasp at?
    Perhaps hypocrisy is too kind an accusation?

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Jesus Christ!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You rang?

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    This is the single dumbest and lamest GOP bullshit apologia comment thread I've ever seen. Is John around? Let's go for a new low. C'mon assholes I know you can do it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There are plenty of people saying that this accusation should be investigation and if he did it, he should give up his Senate seat.

    Most people on Reason are just not going to fall for the lefty trick to grab a Senate seat. Moore will win and then he can give up his Senate seat. A special election will be held and another Republican will win.

  • Brendan||

    Does this mean that we will no longer see stories about the unfairness of sex offender registries or rebuttals to the idea that sex offenders can never be rehabilitated?

    Will we also not see anymore stories about the merits of allowing people who've lived decades without committing crimes to continue as free citizens despite being here illegally or being prison escapees from the 1970s/80s?
    We've gotten those before where someone who turned out to have a warrant for skipping bail 25 years ago should't be put in prison due to their long life of good behavior since then.

  • Bra Ket||

    They worked some nuanced arguments about the "binary-ness" of sex-offender status into a previous article on Moore, but apparently got cowed into editing it down by some reliable twitter outrage.

    Did they even bother with a Libertarian angle in this one? Kinda just skimming after the first two three articles on the same topic.

  • XM||

    If Roy Moore was a democrat, his supporters would be copying and pasting the exact same rationale and reasoning used by Alabama voters. Back in the day I got into some online argument with libs who were saying things like "Prove that penis pic belongs to Weiner." Seriously. And everyone single one of them probably believed "Jackie" and mattress girl.

    The allegations against Moore haven't risen above speculative level. Guilty or not, he's well aware that none of these women have any sort of physical evidence that can convict him in court. None of his accusers can sue him civilly (the statue of limitation on that is gone, if I'm not mistaken) and the DOJ probably can't open an investigation unless they have something other than community rumors from 40 years ago.

    I'm sure many GOP voters in Alabama WANT the allegation to be false. But at the end of the day you can't nullify thousands of votes based on unverified rumors. And unlike Herman Cain or Weinstein, Moore did not settle with his accuser. This is literally the first time anyone's ever heard of these women.

    More details will surely emerge to decide Moore's fate, but it's a kinda early to be drawing conclusions.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Moore will win and he can give up his Senate seat then. A special election will be held and another Republican will win.

    The Left wants to avoid all that and grab a Senate seat. They could care less about girls that were or were not diddled.

    If people think this type of desperate Democrat action will not be used in the next 12 months, people have not been paying attention. The left will do whatever it takes to stop Trump.

  • Azathoth!!||

    If Roy Moore was a democrat, we would never have heard about this until, after the election, the girl stepped forward, with DNA proof, at which point the Democrats and the media would circle the wagons and insist that 'we couldn't be sure' and 'it's just sex, get over it.' There would be numerous articles about the benefits that accrue to underage girls who are molested by older--liberal/progressive--men, and all his achievements on behalf of women would be exaggerated touted.

    IF Roy Moore was a Democrat

    FTFY

  • Brendan||

    We might even get some people on the View to talk about whether it was "rape rape" and similar equivocations. We'd get some condemnations about the mom not supervising her daughter, possibly some references to some Democratic hero who married a teenager in the past, etc.

    I'm somewhat content to get a little dirty 'defending' assholes like Roy Moore if it means denying the left the ability to use him to claim some sorely undeserved moral ground. I'm doubly content to do so when it means exposing them as rank hypocrites wiling to undermine various aspects of their own policy reform desires in order to snag a Senate seat.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I have no problem demanding that this is investigated and if true, Roy Moore resign his Senate seat. This would allow a new special election to have another Republican win over a Democrat.

    After Roy Moore wins the Senate special election that is.

  • Brendan||

    Same here.

  • EscherEnigma||

    But at the end of the day you can't nullify thousands of votes based on unverified rumors.


    Sure you can. You just have to be pre-emptive about it and use a registry that's know to produce an absurd number of false positives that are disproportionately Democrat when "cleaning up" voter registries, not notify folks that their registration was nullified, and do it close enough to the election so that they can't re-register even if they did know.

  • eyeroller||

    here's hoping that the "clarifying effect" of all this is an actual commitment to shrinking the state and limiting its power in all aspects of our lives

    Because deep down, Republicans are libertarians! Ignore 100% of the evidence and BELIEVE!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No but some Republicans are fiscally conservative-ish.

    There are zero Democrats that are fiscally conservative at all.

  • Hank Phillips||

    DemoGOP looters are interchangeable. Their supporters care only about parasitism, graft, boodle and coercion, not principles, ideals or ideas. The sad part is anyone dumb enough to throw away a vote on kleptocrats loses the extra 5-20 time the law changing clout their spoiler vote could have had if they were able to solve 8th grade fractions problems. The very number of prohibitionist sockpuppets buying Reason subscriptions to insert chaff into the comments is evidence that the looters understand perfectly that as spoiler voting giveth, spoiler voting taketh away--now that there is a non-looter party on the ballot in 50 States.

  • EscherEnigma||

    No but some Republicans are fiscally conservative-ish.
    [Citation needed].

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Rand Paul.

    Ron Paul was.

  • PlaystoomuchHALO||

    The GOP lost all credibility when the evangitards under the direction of Jerry Falwell infiltrated and raped the party into submission. All the old party members left, leaving a theocratic core of big-goverment christian socialists pretending to be Republicans in charge.

    Everything changed except the name, and nobody has ever trusted that bunch of lying sociopaths.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You are probably right. The GOP is still better than the Democrats though.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Methinks Hollywood is being punished for the Tom Cruise movie explaining how economic collapse happened to "coincide" with Reagan-Bush asset-forfeiture prohibitionism. The American Made story is "true" as Hollywood stories go, and bears watching for an explanation of the Crashes of 1987, 2000 and 2007, as well as the flash crashes in 2010 and 2015.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    Can the conservative movement survive the election of a possible child molester?

    Oh for fuck's sake! Unless this girl hadn't gone through puberty yet, she was an adult physiologically. This retarded concept called Adolescence has been nothing but a goddamn scourge in Western society for the last 100 years. It was based on horseshit junk science to begin with and had everything to do with special interests (labor unions and then teacher's unions) wanting to extend their fucking racket. As it is, we've taken this Infantilizing to its logical conclusion to where we now have non-functional adults who will be running things very soon. And there are even asswipes that want to further push the final Age of Majority all the way to 25 because "the brain doesn't stop developing until the mid-20s". That's right, at which point it begins declining you meat-headed shitsacks.


    Hate Moore for being an authoritarian asshole, not for unproven allegations.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    An even bigger crack to the magic 18 being adolescent-adult age is that quite a few additional things require you to be 21.

    I am all for a "legal age" being some age we all vote on. 18 seems okay since school for most kids ends during the year they turn 18. This allows them to serve in the military, enter into contracts, smoke, drink, rent a car, etc. But the state cannot decide you are "over 18" when you are 16 because of some crime charge or to further some state interest.

  • Brendan||

    Hell, 14 year olds can be emancipated in a few states, get married in some (with parental permission), in addition to the large number of them serving 'adult' sentences. They can't get life without parole anymore, but can be sentenced to life with parole after 50 years and things like that.

    Hell, 12 year olds can get 30-60 years for a crime.

    I don't like 20+ year olds chasing them, but that doesn't mean we have to treat them the same as a 9 year old either.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I think we are just too wishy-washy on the age of consent.

    As with Roy Moore, it allows lefties to come 30 years later and demand a lynching (because Democrats like to hang people). Fourteen used to be pretty common for girls to be able to marry and be emancipated around the USA. Times have changed but you cannot judge historical events with the same lens you now use.

    It also makes it to interpretive for state agents to go after some kids but not others for stuff.

    Set an age of consent and stick to it.

  • Brendan||

    Going a little further with it, I like the idea that a person is the same person they were 35-40 years ago when it comes to something like this, but it's wrong to call out Democrats who opposed gay marriage in the past, or to state that the Democratic party is the party of slavery, because they changed.

    "People can change, you know?" is a common refrain when someone brings up Obama and Hillary's stance on gay marriage, the Democrats views on immigration in the early 90s, etc.

    But, Republicans need to be treated as though they are the same person they allegedly were in 1977 or 1980. This doesn't open a lot of good doors for the older generation of Democrats. How many interns, pages, secretaries, etc. did Chuck Schumer or Bernie Sanders slap on the ass 40 years ago?
    How many times did Dianne Feinstein use a variation of the "N" word in the late 70s?
    What was it like in Dick Durbin's office in the early 1980s?

    Hell, FDR's internment of the Japanese is viewed in the historical context (still pretty bad) and not by today's standards.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties don't change. They just add different lies to their war chest.

    Interning Americans was unconstitutional in 1942 and is currently unconstitutional. Something being unconstitutional never has stopped Democrats before and it never will in the future.

  • NoVaNick||

    I know a bit about the deep south, having dated a young woman from Louisiana some years back, and Moore's actions are not considered too outside the norm by their standards. For example, she told me that her dad's friend caught her smoking when she was 15 and gave her a spanking on her bare bottom. That's right folks...Of course, in the deep blue Northeast, it has been Catholic priests molesting young boys that was long an open, if not tolerated, secret.

    So I wouldn't be surprised if Moore wins, but it will not help the GOP in the midterms to have an avowed child molester in their ranks. Or maybe it will, who knows?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Fortunately, Moore's not an 'avowed' child molester.

    He's an 'accused' child molester.

    And, after the election, these women will evaporate--because their stories can't possibly stand up in court.

  • JuanQPublic||

    But that's a stretch, because he is running for US Senate, where one crafts law. He's not applying at Wal-Mart.

    He has his Constitutional liberties and presumption of innocence like everyone else in a court of law, but that doesn't extend to a right to be a Senator or a right to not be scrutinized.

    There is a larger pattern with "hardliner" Moore, a pattern that shows that he shouldn't be a lawmaker.

  • Brendan||

    I wonder if the long term implications are worth it just so the Democrats can snatch up a Senate seat.

    A lot of ground has been given up in the name of reforming sex offender laws, allowing people to be forgiven for long past offenses, etc.

    Sorry lefties, you've established that there is no forgiveness for just accusations and hearsay from 35-40 years ago.

    You've also established that 14 year olds are children when it comes to sexual acts, so no more demands that they be able to decide to get an abortion or the pill on their own because they own their bodies or know enough to make that decision.

    No more complaints about some guy on the sex offender registry because he was 19 or 20 and slept with a 14 or 15 year old, whether the incident happened 5 or 25 years ago. We've established that someone who does that is a pedophile, never reforms, and cannot be forgiven.

    This is a lot to give up for a single Senate seat.

  • EscherEnigma||

    A lot of ground has been given up in the name of reforming sex offender laws, allowing people to be forgiven for long past offenses, etc.
    I keep seeing folks beat this drum, but it entirely ignores that said "forgiveness" comes after doing time, admitting fault, and attempting to reform.

  • Brendan||

    He's accused, and thus far nothing has come up for the last 35 years, wouldn't that count as reformed?

  • Brendan||

    Their stories are barely holding up now, so yeah they'll disappear the same way those last minute Trump accusers did.

  • JFree||

    This has nothing to do with legal consequences. There are none. The statute of limitations was/is three years.

    This has everything to do with embarrassment - or the arrogance of 'does he think he uniquely speaks for God' - or the humility of a flawed person. And its pretty clear that Moore and his flock of sheep have some 'issues' re that.

    This former 14 year old is merely the one pointing out that the Emperor wore tighty whities around little girls. The reactions/denials/hyperventilation to that is what is really revealing.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Meh. Moore and his supporters/excuse makers are just a different brand of retarded crazy stupid, compared to Trump and his supporters.

    Most people are morons and provide endless evidence against universal suffrage. Push the right buttons, and they will reliably vote for/against anyone or anything.

    How am I doing?

  • JuanQPublic||

    That's why the Constitution recognizes "tyranny of the majority".

  • Praveen R.||

    I wouldnt call him a child molester. But he does seem like a creep. Never liked him because the guy has neanderthal views about many things. But I think we dilute the meaning of child molester. Now, it is possible he probably had actual sex and not just dated 13 or 14 year olds.

  • Tony||

    30-somethings shouldn't date 14 year-olds, whatever you call it. And those who do shouldn't be in the US senate.

    Now enter Sevo to explain why that's wrong.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The parents were fine with it and this was 30 years ago, so things were different then.

    Personally, I think kids should be allowed to be kids until the age of legal consent (18 or whatever). Who am I to tell parents who their daughter should date or marry and at what age? If its legal in that state then so what if its creepy. The accusation is that she was 14 at the time, which would have evidently been illegal.

    Moore will win the election and then he can resign his Senate seat. A new special can be held and another Republican will fill that Senate seat.

  • Tony||

    Things were not different 30 years ago, weirdo.

  • NoVaNick||

    Things were different 30 years ago in that people like Moore and Weinstein could get away with what they did because it was so common that nobody thought anything of it, or didn't dare speak up if they did because they didn't want to be thought of as a weirdo. I bet a 30-something guy in Alabama who wasn't hot for teenyboppers would have been considered a homo back then.

  • Tony||

    Then Alabama is fucked up. It was not normal to normal people for 30-somethings to date 14 year olds, even in the 80s.

  • NoVaNick||

    Then Alabama is fucked up

    Yes...so are most states, but each is fucked up in its own way.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I know Tony, it was fucked up that men and women married young to get as many kids out as they could before they died at 35 years old.

    History is a bitch and so are you Tony.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    How about in the 1880's? 1780's?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yes they were Tony. Outside your home of the USSR , anyway.

    I would walk to school on my own. I could be gone all day, without my parents having the Nanny-State come take me away. I could drink Big Gulps without the Nanny-State taking me away. As a teenager, I could have sex with teenage girls and not be handcuffed and charged as a sex offender. There was no unconstitutional ObamaCare scheme on the books. You could fuck your teacher without everyone going to jail. Young girls could be with older guys for whatever reason the girls wanted.

    There were many things different Tony.

  • Tony||

    The girls did not want to be with Roy Moore. They didn't want him touching their vaginas or forcing them to touch his erection. It was not normal then or any time in modern history.

    You are a fucked up pervert.

  • Flyby||

    I agree Tony that this was never considered 'normal'. But again you're making the assumption that because he was accused, he necessarily is guilty of everything the accuser stated.

    Do you have ANY concern that someone's entire life can be destroyed by someone making a claim that happened so long ago that there's virtually no way to either confirm or refute the claim? I don't want to support someone who has molested a 14 year old, but I'm also very uneasy about a world where anyone can claim anything about anybody else, and I'm essentially left to take it on faith that the claim is true.

  • Brendan||

    Don't most Democrats claim that Alabama is still stuck in the 1950s? If so, wouldn't the late 70 be like them being stuck in the late 30s?

    Maybe it really was a different time.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 12:07PM|#
    The girls did not want to be with Roy Moore. They didn't want him touching their vaginas or forcing them to touch his erection. It was not normal then or any time in modern history.
    You are a fucked up pervert.


    Aw, Tony you think everyone is a pervert who will not cave to your lefty demands.

    People used to marry at 14 or even younger. The Muslims still have that tradition. The Muslims, Tony! Life was tougher and people didn't live as long, so you needed to make kids earlier in life.

    Luckily, we can have our kids grow up and be kids until 18. Adults typically live to 75+, so there is no rush on having fertile girls around in a harem.

    I know you lefties love to ignore history but that is how it was. It was also common 30 years ago for teenage girls to mess around with men over 18.

    Anna Nicole Smith dropped out of high school at age 14 in 1982 and was married three years later to a Billy Smith at 17. She then married the Billionaire J. Howard Marshall who was 89 years old.

    Frances Folsom Cleveland was 21 when she married president Grover Cleveland and their age difference was 28 years.

  • NoVaNick||

    Young girls could be with older guys for whatever reason the girls wanted.

    But, if the girl's dad ever found out, there would be a justifiable homicide.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sometimes. If a marriage proposal was possible, sometimes marriage was the way to "fix" the situation.

    Women of class had honor that needed to be protected that they were virgins when married.

  • JuanQPublic||

    From a legal standpoint, the media was conflating when questioning about other "16-17 year old females" with Moore at the time, because while it's creepy as he was in his 30s, 14 was below consent age, even then. 1) the law, 2) the imbalance of power, and 3) the obvious conflict of interest should be the focus here. 2 and 3 still apply to the other hypothetical females.

    Considering he was a DA, in a position of power and had a deep conflict of interest there, that should have removed him from his office then and there. The overall pattern of flouting the law, ethics and Constitution makes him dangerous.

    Moore regularly shows contempt for the law and the Constitution, and given these allegations, they do fit an unsavory pattern. And he fashions himself a hardliner, which makes it all the more hypocritical and contemptible.

  • Flyby||

    I don't understand your point JuanQ. How do 'imbalance of power' or 'conflict of interest' have anything at all to do with this? This isn't a workplace relationship we're talking about.

    And what 'overall pattern of flouting the law' are you referring. I know he was criticized for the whole '10 commandments' display, but other than that I'm not aware of all these ethics abuses or patterns of contempt you seem to be point to.

  • Brendan||

    Would you be OK if Roy Moore won and immediately resigned, letting the governor appoint Luther Strange or maybe Mo Brooks? Moore wouldn't be in the Senate.

  • Tony||

    I'm pretty comfortable putting cynical partisan tribalism aside in order to keep a child predator out of the senate. I only wish the rest of you could do the same. Especially since you claim not to be tribal partisans.

  • Brendan||

    By most standards embraced by the left, wouldn't he be a "former child predator" who hasn't 'reoffended' in 35 years?

    The rest of see this for what it is - a desperate Senate seat grab.

    Democrats do not give a shit about these women or their stories. They will disappear into the wind right after the election. We've seen this too many times to ignore it.

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    No, it is the vile Republicans.

    Doug Jones fought for justice for four black girls burnt in a church by klansmen.

    But you won't prefer him to Moore, because the latter is a Republican.
    Not even when he looks likely to have been a sexual predator in addition.

  • Flyby||

    Is there any possibility that your own 'cynical partisan tribalism' is behind your seeming automatic assumption that he is a child predator based on nothing more than someone's claim about something happening, 40 years after the fact?

    What's really been nagging at me about this whole thing is how anyone who tries to be even the slightest bit fair-minded about it (i.e. not unquestioningly accepting the accusation as pure fact) has been instantly condemned. There can be no 'if true, he should be punished', the only acceptable response is to assume guilt without ANY question, otherwise you are supporting a predator.

    Seems like the entire concept of 'presumption of innocence' as a shared American value (not just in the criminal justice system) no longer exists. Someone said she was a witch... Burn her!

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    reason.com Republicans claim to be libertarians. You think they have any problems being partisan?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Because defending our constitutional process from a blatant lefty Senate seat grab means you are a Republican.

    Every Libertarian on here should see this for what it is and let Alabama voters decide the election and let law enforcement decide if there is enough evidence to charge Moore for a crime from 30 years ago. If he did commit something wrong, then he can resign his Senate seat and a new special election can be held for another Republican to win it over the Democrat.

    This is of course, not what lefties want. They want outrage and Moore to abandon his Senate seat, so the Democrats can claim a referendum against Trump is a solid red state like Alabama.

  • EscherEnigma||

    That's an interesting hypothetical, but unless Moore vows to do so, it's also irrelevant.

  • XM||

    "30-somethings shouldn't date 14 year-olds."

    Which he never did. He dated 17 and 19 year olds, and their parents knew about it.

    Only two women came forward with a specific allegation. The other "witnesses" confirm that he either preferred or dated younger women.

  • Robert Crim||

    AOC in Alabama at the time was 14, 12 with a parent's permission. You may object to the law if you like (and apparently many did since it was upped to 16 in 2003), but the bottom line is that Moore did no more than explore taking a child bride -- which he eventually did, and has stayed married to her for decades.

    As for "30-somethings shouldn't date 14 year olds," queers shouldn't fuck queers up the ass either, but most libertarians aren't calling for all queers to be thrown out of office.

  • EscherEnigma||

    ... ignoring whether or not Republicans ever had credibility and whether or not they've lost it, it only actually matters if it impacts elections.

    So far, there is zero indication it has or will. If Moore loses, it won't be by much, so I'm not inclined to make hay of that, one way or the other. And while Democrats had a so-called "sweep" last week, it's regular and expected for the minority power to make gains during off-years, so I wouldn't read too much into that either.

    So yeah. Credibility? If they had it and if they lost it, we're a few years from seeing the evidence.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Democrats won Virginia's governorship that was previously held by a Democrat. Not a sweep.

    The sweep will come in 2018, when Democrats lose more political offices and then the whooper will be 2020 when trump wins re-election by the largest landslide since Reagan.

  • EscherEnigma||

    According to Trump, he already won in a historic landslide, so how would you notice?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump did. He beat Hillary after she was 20 points ahead.

    It will be an even bigger landslide in 2020 when Trump wins re-election.

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    Yes, and they won big in Virginia legislature. Try again

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Virginia is a Democratically controlled state. The bureaucrats living near DC and the cities control Virginia now. The are scared of losing their jobs when Trump continues draining the swamp.

    Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania voting strong Republican is more of a sweep than Virginia showing its Blue colors.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Well, so much for principled libertarian concern for the rights of the accused and the presumption of innocence. I guess it was good while it lasted. You might even say that this reflects the end of libertarianism.

  • Bob Meyer||

    I am going to lead with "Sean Hannity is a piece of shit who supported Moore with his 10 Commandments mini Stonehenge and his refusal to allow gay marriage licenses".

    Given that, if you heard Moore's interview with Hannity then you have enough evidence to want to keep Moore as far from the Senate as possible. Moore's most sympathetic questioner practically destroyed him by asking the simplest questions for which Moore refused to give a straight answer.

    There is not nearly enough evidence to put Moore away. Forty year old accusations are hard to accept because of the problems with normal human memory but Moore's present day evasions show him to be a slimy character who can't be trusted even if you approve of his religious bigotry.

    If I were on a jury judging the evidence against Moore I would vote for acquittal, but I would leave the courtroom ready to do what I could to end his political career.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    If being a slimy character were disqualifying of sitting in the Senate, the entire Senate would consist of Rand Paul, Mike Lee and maybe a couple of other people The question isn't whether he's a good guy or whether I'd even vote for him. It's whether we have sufficient evidence to conclude he's not qualified to sit in the Senate. And what do we have? We have a forty year old accusation from someone working on his opponent's campaign that never came up in the decade he was loudly banging his bible about God and Christianity. And we know that she could have met him when she was young. That's it. I never thought I'd have to say this on an ostensibly libertarian site, but an accusation is not evidence. Nor is a creepy or evasive demeanor.

    I get it. You don't like the guy. You know what? Neither do I. That's supposed to be beside the point. The question is supposed to be whether there is a good reason to remove this man from the running, to decide that the vote of the people of his state aside, he's disqualified from serving in office. What basis is there in fact to make that conclusion?

  • Bob Meyer||

    Moore is running as a representative of the Republican party and as a party they can withdraw their endorsement of him at any time for any reason.

    Under federal law he could serve in the Senate even if he were a child murderer, the only requirements are being at least 30 years old and a resident of his state.

    How much power a state has over elections will probably end up in the Supreme Court like it did in 2000.

  • XM||

    "Moore is running as a representative of the Republican party and as a party they can withdraw their endorsement of him at any time for any reason."

    Perhaps they can, but if they did that regularly, it'd be suicide.

    Alabama is a deep red state and Mcconnell and friends are reasoning that Alabamans will swallow their anger and vote for the republican replacement if Moore was forced out. No loss for the GOP senate and they can claim "see we cared about women in the age of Weinstein". Two birds, one stone.

    But even if that happens, it could still backfire on party leadership. "Us vs the establishment" is fave narrative of Trump supporters. Angry voters might stop giving donations of the party and support even less of anything not championed by Trump.

    Bill is right, the quality of the candidate has nothing to do with (false) accusations. Obamacare ran almost 10 years on subsidies that were never approved by congress. Obama should never have been president, but that has no effect on any rape allegations lodged against him.

  • Bob Meyer||

    "Deep Red State" has different meanings. The Republican elites seems to think that in Alabama it means the Bible trumps the Constitution and you can only fuck people of the opposite sex. Why? Because if Deep Red means smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, less regulation and more individual freedom then the Republican party is thoroughly screwed because there aren't four Republicans who would be willing to risk the next election defending freedom with their actions not merely their words.

    Whether there is more to gain by supporting Trump than by opposing him is debatable. No Democrat will ever support Trump even if he advocated a program of high speed rail transport with special hospital cars providing free abortion on demand and powered by renewable energy paid for by taxing the 1%. So the only support comes from Bible thumpers, immigration restrictionists and economic protectionists. How does that gel with free trade and less regulation much less free markets and free minds?

    There are no people less practical than "pragmatic" politicians. They wanted a "Big Tent" party but they filled the tent with animals that want to eat each other.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Bob, you don't know shit about what Republicans--elite or not--think beyond what you r leftist masters tell you to think.

    And you don't know Democrats either.

    "No Democrat will ever support Trump even if he advocated a program of high speed rail transport with special hospital cars providing free abortion on demand and powered by renewable energy paid for by taxing the 1%."

    If Democrats--Obama voters-- hadn't voted for Trump we'd all be living in the nuclear wasteland Hillary was promising us right now.

  • Harvard||

    Speaking about the end of credibility, let's end Gillespie's. Checking his link on "credible accusations" of Moore I read nothing provable in this Hesaid/Shesaid farce. Nick's reduced himself to yet another NeverTrumper who's knickers remain in the same wad all the Hillary sycophants are in since the election.
    What you've convinced me of Nick is that just like election eve 2016 I have two choices. A possible pedophile and and an uber liberal. I'll pop for the perp and mail yet another check to ReElect Donald Trump, uncork a brew and watch with glee the antics of the closeted Gillespie and the outed liberals.

  • Harvard||

    I'm almost getting tired of winning.

  • ThomasD||

    Gillespie weeps for the Republicans and their diminished credibility.

    Good the thing the Jacket is stainproof pleather.

  • POWDER||

    "Over 50 Alabama ministers have signed a letter supporting him"

    This has been found to be false, it's actually a re-purposed letter posted to his wife's facebook page. The original letter of support was signed and issued during his primary campaign, none of the signatories(ministers) of the original letter were notified that it was being re-issued.

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    I am sure that those 50 pastors will come forward and denounce Kayla for misleading the public like that.

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    LOL, Drumpf lies or misleads to the tune of five statements a day.

    Now is when you wonder if Republican credibility is lost?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You will of course, provide 5 Trump statements a day for the next 2 months as evidence of your position?

  • Bob Meyer||

    Republican credibility was lost when Mitt Romney's dad, George Romney, not only refused to endorse Barry Goldwater but refused to be in the same state as Goldwater during the campaign. That was the day that the Republican party officially abandoned small government in every way but slogans.

    George Romney once said that his proudest accomplishment was passing an income tax in Michigan.

    Since that time the Republican party has given us Nixon, two Bushes and Trump, all big spending statists. Exactly how much credibility did the party have to lose? They'd already failed on Obamacare and tax cuts. Surely one lone child molester couldn't tarnish that record.

    Moore has become the scapegoat for the Republicans "losing control" of congress, a control they never really had. When the government becomes as intrusive as the one we have it creates vast numbers of pressure groups engaged in a war of all against all for federal dollars and federal power. Gridlock doesn't exist because of Republicans vs Democrats. It exists because of high tax states vs low tax states, people with mortgage deductions vs renters, corporations benefiting from protectionism vs small businesses that can't afford to buy congressmen to protect them.

    The divisions in this country have nothing to do with red vs blue. It has to do with who can screw whom using the power of the state.

  • NoVaNick||

    Very well said, Bob!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Good point. As you say, since many Republicans are like Democrats, there are very few voices for small government.

    This is why I look forward to Democrats dying out, Republicans being the big spending party of religious folks, and Libertarians being the main opposition to the GOP.

  • ThomasD||

    But, but, but,

    Nick Gillespie is very concerned over this loss of Republican credibility!!!

  • AndyWingall||

    I was reading in Slate how Republican voters won't care if their candidate is a child molester. And this coming from the Left which doesn't care if their candidates are child molesters.

  • Ron||

    I'm curious what is the age of consent in Alabama, also why did the one girl got to his house repeatedly?

    and to Bob Meyers point , that is why Trump won the gop and dems are two sides of the same coin trying see the back of the coin, all they do is go in circles

  • XM||

    The AOC in Alabama was 16 at the time. Maybe it still is, but I imagine that will change now.

  • Robert Crim||

    INCORRECT!

    AOC became 16 in Alabama in 2003. In 1979, a woman could marry at 14 and even 12 with a parent's consent.

  • Mizchief||

    I don't know if he did it or not. That's what courts are for. But it seems to me "Child Molester" is just next poo-flinging attempt by the left. Everyone was a racist and sexists, then that wore out, then everyone was a White Nationalist, then that wore out, then they were White Supremacists, then full blown Nazi's, and now child molesters?

  • Priscilla King||

    Whatever the effect on my feminist credibility, I think the timing of these reports of relatively low-risk incidents is *awfully* suspicious. I'd like to see documentation that these women saw themselves as "little girls" who needed to be protected, rather than sexually liberated youth, back in the 1970s. (I was alive then, and very few of us were "little girls" nor were we traumatized by the kind of thing these women report.)

    If it had been rape, or even drug "experiments"...or even if there were any confirming evidence...!

    I have no reason to doubt that Moore *was* a jerk in his long-ago youth--a lot of men were!--but the timing of this whole incident reeks.

  • Longtobefree||

    Evidently 'a woman's right to choose' has only one specific choice in mind.

  • Bischkva||

    Forty years. Good grief. It should be illegal to make such claims after a certain period of time. If you can't bring yourself to report on something as allegedly damaging as someone grabbing your boobs, the whole time this guy was rising in prominence, his name in the papers and all, just STFU about it.

  • SDN||

    Can the rule of law or reliance on elections survive overturning voters by a few unprovable accusations?

    I hope some of Nick Gillespie's enemies demonstrate why the answer better be NO.

  • zombietimeshare||

    Meanwhile, in the Democratic Party, if Menendez manages an acquittal they are planning a big party as they never had credibility to lose.

  • Lucius Junius Brutus||

    0 democrats voted to impeach clinton. Then and there I vowed to never entertain their complaints.

  • Longtobefree||

    First off, I fact check the damn dateline in the Washington Post.
    Second, I will consider any accusation against a politician viable after the criminal charges are filed. Up till then, it is politics as usual. (either party, either way)

  • jmg09||

    How bad a candidate is this Democrat who is two points behind a child molester?

  • Kevin Bjornson||

    Huh? Let me get this straight: you want to limit the size and scope of government--by calling for government to jail people to enforce age of consent laws for teenagers? In Alabama, the current age of consent is 14, but that applies only to sexual intercourse--which Moore is not accused of. Other states allow sexual choice for those aged 14, and the most populous country in the world--China--has age of consent at 14.

    Even if in poor taste, Moore's conduct was not illegal, and at this point, unproven. By joining the lynch mob, Reason undermines what shreds of credibility it once had.

    To be honest, your hysteria would not be so overflowing, were the accused not a Bible-thumper.

  • ThomasD||

    Gillespie is not concerned with Reason's credibility.

    He's deeply, profoundly wedded to Republican credibility.

    Can't you see that?

  • Harvard||

    NIck's wedded to his self important liberal core.

  • Kevin Bjornson||

    The current age of consent (for intercourse) in Alabama is 16. The accuser aged 14 is a long-time Democrat activist and her accusations, even if true, don't amount to a crime.

  • Longtobefree||

    Just for the record, the 'small government' republican party lost credibility when it used the power of the federal government to interfere in the marriage of one couple in the entire country by passing a law to take a state court issue and legislatively transfer it to federal courts. ( see Terri Schiavo)
    Needless to say, all of the federal actions were found unconstitutional.

  • Bob Meyer||

    We have spent the day arguing about whether Moore is a child molester and whether the accusations justify keeping Moore out of the Senate. We haven't spent any time looking at Moore's legislative inclinations. Moore's social view are vile but also unachievable. No one can put gay marriage back in the toothpaste tube. Banning abortion a week at a time seems stalled. I don't see any religious tests for office on the horizon anywhere. Only in the idiotic drug war could Moore be a problem. He makes Jeff Sessions look like Timothy Leary. If you don't know who Tim Leary was, ask your father.

    On the economy I haven't the foggiest idea where Moore stands, or even if he stands at all. I suspect that like most Republicans he just sort of slithers around dodging issues whenever he finds them. I expect the usual "We must lower taxes, increase spending and, most importantly, we must cut the deficit".

  • Free Oregon||

    Will erectile dysfunction become a prerequisite for elected office?

    Such a development would cause a wholesale turnover in Congress and do wonders reducing, even eliminating entrenched corruption.

  • Headache||

    Over 50 Alabama ministers have signed a letter supporting him and his unconstitutional refusals to remove his Ten Commandments monument and allow for same-sex marriage after it was legalized by the Supreme Court. And Fox News' Sean Hannity is actively encouraging his viewers to boycott advertisers who are critical of Moore.

    This sentence from Reason's Editor in Chief!

    WTF.
    Nick Gillespie and the End of Libertarian Credibility.

  • Headache||

    Ok I missed a '." . Still, the first sentence sucks Commas have a place in grammar.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Only a few weeks ago, the media was awash in stories about "the Republican civil war" pitting limited-government conservatives against less-principled tribalists and who simply want to win at any cost. Roy Moore may well represent the final straw for principled conservatives.

    "Muh principles!"

    Predictably, Nick spins this through the eyes of NeverTrumper lens instead of a Trumpsters lens.

    Here is the Trumpster lens. The MSM wants the Right to lose, and the GOPe wants Trump to lose. Smearing and sabotaging a Trump supporting senator is *entirely* predictable from both. Defeating Trump is Job #1 of both. The GOPe would rather lose a seat to a Democrat than a Trumpster, because Trumpsters threaten their roster spots on the Washington Generals, while the Democrats do not.

    Deep State gonna Deep State.

    It is amusing to have Reason all of a sudden so completely against someone accused of child sexual predation, whereas in any other article they'd be calling it a witch hunt.

    Muh Principles!

  • buybuydandavis||

    Can someone point me to the articles where Nick condemned Democratic credibility for electing a rapist to the Presidency?

    Thanks.

  • Presskh||

    Agree. We're all waiting for this.

  • AndyWingall||

    Why can't people just hate each other? Why do we have to imagine each other as child molesting monsters? If the Left hates the Right, state your reasons. What's with the racist bigot rapist shit?

  • Presskh||

    Republicans in Alabama need to ignore all the smoke and vote to maintain their slim majority in the Senate. This election is not about whether or not Moore or Jones are "nice" or "honorable" or have any baggage in their past - it's all about the numbers in the Senate. If the Senate flips to a Democratic majority, Democrats will head all committees, stymie all of Trump's proposed legislation, and refuse to confirm any future conservative Supreme Court nominee. Democrats are great at creating smoke at strategic moments, aided by a colluding media. Republicans, on the other hand, are notoriously stupid at falling for this smoke and are quick to abandon any candidate if there is the slightest hint of imperfection. Republicans need to follow the Democrat's lead and keep their eyes on the big, long-term picture.

  • NoVaNick||

    I personally could care less if Moore loses to what's his name? democrat. Scott Brown only lasted two years in Mass. I could care even less so at this point if the dems win back the senate-it really won't make a difference, since the GOP has pretty much blocked all of Trump's legislation.

    Given that our two choices of "viable" parties are shitty (GOP) and shittier (Dems), who take turns in power every 8-12 years, I don't even bother to vote unless there is a libertarian running.

  • Jonathon||

    Because of the timing of the accusation, I would ignore it and not allow it to effect ones vote and, after the election should Moore prevail employ the consequences if the accusation is proven true requiring him to step aside and go through the process of selecting/electing a replacement.
    Perhaps we need a law requiring disclosure of any dirt on a political candidate to be presented in a more timely fashion, or remain silent until after the elections once ballots have been finalized?

  • Presskh||

    Agree, Jonothan.

  • Robert Crim||

    Whatever you think of Roy Moore's politics, you're being unfair to him by reiterating charges false as a matter of law.

    TODAY, Alabama's age of consent is 16, BUT THAT WAS NOT SO IN 1979. Alabama law then allowed women to marry at 14, 12 with a parent's permission. You don't have to agree with this law (and I don't), but it simply begs credulity to say that Moore was breaking a law that didn't exist at the time, based upon standards that became the law only after 2003.

    The evidence against Moore is compelling, but not in any evil sense. He DID marry a woman VERY much younger than he -- AND HAS STAYED MARRIED TO HER FOR SEVERAL DECADES. Reasonable men cannot read anything into what's claimed now other than that one who wanted a child bride was looking for what he wanted and eventually found it. You may damn the standards of the time, and that's your right, but it's simply WRONG to say Moore was "molesting" children based upon what one person, decades after the fact, after standards were changed, CHOOSES to call it TODAY.

    Sex-harassment and similar laws play an important role in today's society, but no laws are more abused. Reason should focus on that, not on news fools with liberal agendas who see the current opportunity as useful to disabling the U.S. Senate. The Washington Post doesn't give a rat's ass about the women involved; what it wants is to reduce the Republican majority to where it is no majority.

    You of all people, ought to be able to see that.

  • Presskh||

    Excellent post, Robert. Factually based, logical argument.

  • Hinara||

    Well said.

  • Hinara||

    Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? Isn't he innocent until proven guilty?

  • BohdanUke1||

    This site is CINO. Stop the hit pieces on Moore. Rush to judgement is the biggest freakin' understatement you could make.

    You believe those crocodile tears... 38 YEARS LATER? All crap. If these women didn't inform the authorities... at least by the "Statute of Limitations"... they are worthless.

    How coincidental... the accusations and tears... come out... "only" (38) YEARS LATER and (4) weeks before election day.

    You're all fuckin' warped to buy their stories.

  • Empress Trudy||

    Trial by accusation is more than a slippery slope, it's Maoist denunciation

  • Carter Mitchell||

    Nick, I am surprised that you would join the chorus with loaded (and meaningless) phrases like "stands credibly accused" when the timing (and 100% lack of any evidence whatsoever) - right after Moore defeated McConnell's hand-picked toady for the Senate is more than just suspicious.

    I expect better of Reason and its contributors.

    BTW, I'm not especially a fan of Moore, and could care less about the Alabama race, but if the Establishment hates him so much...

    And this recent trend toward infantilizing teenagers isn't something a libertarian media should be playing into, either.

  • Badger O Stripey One||

    What happened to presumption of innocence? When a complaint is suddenly made, close to an election, about alleged sexual impropriety forty years ago, should not alarm bells ring about the credibility? Moore should be judged in the proper place, not the media. There will be plenty of time for that AFTER the election.

  • SezWhom||

    Like Moore, Nick Gillespie is also a possible child molester. Nick, until you can prove yourself innocent, I'm going to have to assume that you are a sexual predator. I mean, that leather coat and all, I can't help but be suspicious.....

  • Mark22||

    I despise Roy Moore's politics and beliefs as much as he likely despises me as a gay man and an atheist.

    However, what I despise even more than hostile authoritarian theocrats is being manipulated with political hit pieces published by billionaire propaganda machines who want to put their cronies back into power.

  • HenryC||

    If the Democrats can survive Bill Clinton, the GOP will survive the far less important Roy Moore.

  • HenryC||

    I live in Alabama. I was disgusted in the choice of Senator in the Primary. Strange was corrupt, he should have prosecuted the former Governor but cut a deal to get appointed Senator to replace Sessions. Roy Moore likely was corrupt in his private life. This was our choice. I did not vote. I will vote for Moore in the general election and hope the Senate fulfills its pledge to kick him out. Anyone to prevent Democratic economic policies from being put in place. Sorry, but policy over person.

  • TheWildWebster||

    yet another gleaming example of why I find the name 'Reason' on this e-publican laughable. The Roy Moore scenario is the 'end' of republican credibility? Republicans and the RNC lost their credibility a long time ago! If it wasn't gone by the end of Bush I's tenure or the start of Bush II's, it was most definitely out the window by the time they put up McCain/Palin for PotUS

  • trutherator||

    Amen.

  • trutherator||

    Amen.

  • trutherator||

    Can the Republican Party survive Roy Moore? Really? Are Libertarian Party hacks thirsting that much for power? You think the Uniparty and Swamp Media ganging up on Establishment-disruptor Moore is going to go that way? Maybe the Swamp Uniparty is going to blow it up.

    My take is Alabama is going to elect Moore. So far the State Party Committee is waiting to see. That is how it should be. BIll Clinton's accusers had enough evidence for rape, abuse, and even murder but they circled the wagons for him. Dems still thought they could own 2016.

    If the Rep Party survives Moore, and the accusers evaporate after the Senatorial election, and no physical evidence appears of real bad behavior, the bad taste will stick and McConnell is even more exposed. And so will be WP. One or two of them (like the 14-year-old accusation) has already faded and some links disappeared.

    The yearbook is dubious and the Moore campaign is demanding its release for scrutiny by experts and Gloria Allred is refusing to let anybody independent analyze it while demanding an independent analysis. Ha.

  • trutherator||

    Can Reason Magazine survive the publication of this article asking such a stupid question insulting its readership?

    Will its libertarian credibility survive?

  • Mark P||

    What about Democratic credibility? Al Franken is already in the Senate, and Bill Clinton has already been a president. According to Dick Morris, Congress protects its own members from sexual harassment and child molestation cases: the charges remain anonymous and civil damages for these unprosecuted crimes are paid for by taxpayers.

  • Barry Gold||

    Sigh. WIshful thinking, Gillespie. If only we could see a return to principles -- a balanced budget, a limited government. But those principles don't seem to result in electability.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online